Ranbir Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra nos.91 (06-08), 93/1 (01-03), 94/1 (02-08), 118 (04-16), 122/3 (01- 04), 123 (04-16), 124 (05-06), 125 (04-16), 126/1 (02-08), 129/2 (02- 08), 130 (04-16), 131 (00-14), 132 (03-09), 133 (02-13), 134 (04-16), 135/1 (02-10), 136 (4-16), 138/1 (02-10), 139/2 (02-16), 160/1 (03- 16), 163 (04-04), 164 (04-00), 165 (04-16), 166 (04-16), 201 (04-16), 203 (04-16), 204 (01-18), total measuring 97 bighas and 15 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village Rajpur Khurd, Tehsil Hauz Khas, Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject land’) are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the 2018:DHC:6181-DB Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation has been tendered to the petitioners.

2. Reliance is placed by Mr. Panda, counsel for the LAC on para 9 of the counter affidavit filed by him, which reads as under: NAME AWARD NO.

AMOUNT REMARKS Randhir Singh 22/87-88 92857.08 Paid Dt. 21.08.1987 Mohan Singh 22/87-88 92857.09 Paid Dt. 20.08.1987 Ranbir Singh 22/87-88 92857.09 Paid Dt. 20.08.1987 Satbir Singh 22/87-88 34281.41 Paid Dt. 21.08.1987 Rajbir Singh 22/87-88 34821.40 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987 Rambir Singh 22/87-88 34821.40 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987 Prem Chand 22/87-88 139285.63 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987 Raghbir Singh 22/87-88 69642.81 Paid Dt. 24.08.1987 Sukhbir Singh 22/87-88 69642.81 Paid Dt. 24.08.1987 Parsh Ram 22/87-88 208928.44 Paid Dt. 24.08.1987 Bhagwana 22/87-88 208928.44 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987 Lal Chand 22/87-88 139285.61 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987 Jai Lal 22/87-88 139285.61 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987 Anand Singh 22/87-88 69642.80 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987 Girdhari Singh 22/87-88 69642.81 Paid Dt. 20.08.1987 Sultan 22/87-88 139285.61 Paid Dt. 31.08.1987 Partap Singh 22/87-88 111428.51 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987 Ram Phool 22/87-88 22285.70 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987 Samunder Singh 22/87-88 22285.70 Paid Dt. 31.08.1987 Ajit Singh 22/87-88 22285.70 Paid Dt. 27.08.1987 Jai Pal Singh 22/87-88 55714.26 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987 Dalip Singh 22/87-88 55714.25 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987 Lakhi Ram 22/87-88 111428.51 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987 Chander Singh 22/87-88 111428.51 Paid Dt. 25.08.1987 Kanwar Bhan 22/87-88 38690.46 Paid Dt. 27.08.1987 Parbhu 22/87-88 38690.45 Paid Dt. 07.09.1987 Nar Singh 22/87-88 38690.45 Paid Dt. 07.09.1987 Mahender Singh 22/87-88 38690.45 Paid Dt. 31.08.1987 Smt. Murti 22/87-88 38690.45 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987 Knwar Bhan 22/87-88 7738.09 Paid Dt. 27.08.1987 Parbhu 22/87-88 7738.09 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987 Nar Singh 22/87-88 7738.10 Paid Dt. 07.09.1987 Mahender Singh 22/87-88 7738.09 Paid Dt. 31.08.1987 Smt. Murti 22/87-88 7738.09 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987 Umed Singh 22/87-88 116071.35 Paid Dt. 27.08.1987 Dharam Pal 22/87-88 116071.35 Paid Dt. 27.08.1987 Bhim Kaur 22/87-88 46428.55 Paid Dt. 28.08.1987

3. Mr. Panda, counsel for the LAC submits that even as per petitioners, averments have been made in para 5 of the writ petition that the compensation has been returned/deposited back in the office of Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) by the petitioners and their predecessors, counsel submits that since the compensation has been tendered to the petitioners, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners.

4. Counsel for the petitioners on the other hand submits that cheques were deposited with the office of the LAC, however, he has no record to show that whether the cheques were encashed or not. Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had made a request for grant of an alternate plot on 17.06.1987. He submits that since no relief can be granted in this case, petitioners may be permitted to revive their request for grant of alternate plots.

5. Mr. Panda without prejudice to the rights of the respondents submits that in case an application for revival for grant of an alternate plot is made, the same would be considered by Land & Building Department in accordance with law.

6. The writ petition is dismissed for the reasons stated above. In case, an application for revival for request for grant of alternate plots is made, the Land and Building Department will consider the same in accordance with law.

7. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, no further order is required to be passed in this application. The same is dismissed as withdrawn. G.S.SISTANI, J. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 ck