VKRANT v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 23.06.1989 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on 20.06.1990. Thereafter, an Award bearing no. 8/1992-93- was passed on 19.06.1992. ar-

3. Ml'. Sunil K Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the actual physical possession of the subject land has not been taken and compensation in respect thereofhas not been paid, thus the petitioner would be entitled,to-a declaration under Section 24(2)ofthe 2013 Act. He further stibmits that his submission is further fortified by the stand taken by the LAC in tiie counter affidavit. Learned counsel.further relies on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and anotherf 2017(6) SCC 751, in I response to the stand taken byLAC in the counter affidavitthat the (3) petitionerhasnolocusstanditofilethepresentpetitionasheisnot the recorded owner.Reliance is placedrqii para 28 ofthisjudgment which reads as under:- "28. Thus, the subsequentpurchaser, the assignee, the successor in interest, the power-of-attorney holder, etc., are all persons who are interested in compensation/landowners/affectedpersons in terms of the compensation ofthe 2013Actandsuchpersons are entitled tofile a casefor a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is a W.P.(C)26/2018 Page 2iof[6] • 1 declaration qua the land wherein indisputably they have an interest and they are affected by such acquisition. For such a declaration, it cannot,be said that the respondent-writ petitioners do not have any locus stcindi."

4. Mr. Yeeshii Jain, learned counsel for the LAC the, raised an objection that predecessor-in-interest ofthe petitioner was not the reCiOrded owner ofthe subject land;aha the Gaon Sabha was shown as the recordedowner in the revenue records, hence the petitioner has no right on the subject land. In support of his submissions, counsel for LAC relies on paragraph 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under,"5. That the present writ-petition is liable to be dismissed as the.predece^or-in^interest of the petitioner were not the recorded owrier of.the subject land but the Gaon Sahha was shown'as the recorded owner of the subject landfalling in khasra number 89/3/1 and 89/3/2, village Ghonda Gujran Khadar. \ The writpetition,is dlsoffiqble to be dismissed as the y, petitioners have not'pldeed on.mecord any document which allegedly asserted their alleged rights as 1/144"^ in the subjectland. No Surviving Membership Certificate has been filed along-with the. writ petition."

W.P.(C)26/2018 Page3of[6] subject landsfalling in khasra number 89/3/1 (7-16) and89/3/2(64-05)was taken on thespot bypreparing possession proceedings dated 21.3.2007 and handed over to the DDA on the spot whereas the compensation was assessed in the name of Gaon Sabha as the recorded owner ofthe subject land was shown to be Gaon Sabha."

5. The counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No.3/Delhi Development Authority and the relevant portion is reproduced hereinafter:- ''(7cj...The physical possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 89/3/1 (7-16) and 89/3/2 (61-05), village Ghonda Gujran Khaddr, Shghdfa Delhi was handed over to the DDA by the LA&L&B Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 21.03.2007 and the land was further transferred to J.E./SDV/ED-2 on 19.9.2007. it isfurther submitted that the amount ofcompensation for the.Award to the tune ofRs. 4,10,04,583/-(Rupees, Four Crore Ten Lakh Four T/housand Five Hundred Eighty Three onl^^fmfdid:yfie Cheque No. 088808 dated 28.2.200Z to the Kqhd% B^^ Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Copy' of the possession proceedings are ahhe'xed'as'ANNEXURE-1. Copy of Naksha Muntjamin showing the land as Gam Sabha is annexed as

6. We have heard learned counsels forthe parties and considered their rival submissions.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation has been paid to the petitioner. Counsel has also submitted that the objections ofthe LAC regarding locus standi of the petitioner is misplaced in view ofthe observations made by the T W.P.(C)26/2018 Page4of[6] fo Supreme Court in Manav Dharma Trust(supra) where the rights of the predecessor-in-interest/subsequent purchaser have been recognized. 8; As far as the objection with regard to maintainability is concerned, we find the same to be misplaced in vieW ofthe observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra). We are ofthe considered view that,the submissions made by the counsel for the LAC that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was not the recofded owner ofthe subjectland,holds no ground.

9. In relation to the objection raised by the counsel for the LAC with regard to the land being vested ihthe>Gaon Sabha is concerned,we deem it appropriate to follow a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this court in the case; ofdSanjeev Solanki Vs. Delhi DevelopmentAuthority and 1999/2015, dQcidQd on 24.01.2017,paragraph'5;ofwhichreads as unden- "5. While we have declared that the subject acquisition has.lapsed, it is made clear that this would not amount to giving title to the petitioner or perfecting the petitioner's title inasmuch as Mr. Jain has taken the plea in the counter affidavitfiled on behalfofthe respondent no.2 that the Gaon Sabha has been shown as the recorded owner. This fact is disputed by the learned counselfor thepetitioner. But, we are not entering into the controversy oftitle which may besortedoutelsewhere.Insofar as the acquisition is concerned, the same has lapsed because neither physicalpossession was taken over nor compensation waspaid." W.R(C)26/2018 Page5of[6]

10. As per the counter affidavit filed by LAC,the possession ofthe subject land has been taken on the spot by preparing possession proceedings on 21.3.2007and the compensation ofthe subjectland has not been tendered to the petitioner as being assessed in the name ofGaon Sabha.

11. Having regard to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed bf'LAC that the compensation has not been paid in respect ofthe. subject land and since the award has been announced more than r/ five years prior to the commencement of the2013 Act, the. petitioner is entitled to a declar^ibn'Uhder Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act with legaid to the subject land are deemed to have been lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.

12. However,we make it clearthat we have notexpressed any opinion on the title ofthe subject land.The question,oftitle ofthe subject land is left open to be decided in the appropriate.court of jurisdiction.

13. The writpetition stands disposed ofin above terms. -r. G.S,.SISTANI,J. OCTOBER 10,2018 // SANGIT/PfHlNG^SEHGAL,J