Prem Singh Chauhan & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.

1. This is a petition under Article 226, of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land ofthe petitioners comprised in Khasra No. 1158/320, measuring 20") sq.ydk/bearitig property NO. 27, Gali No.3, Friends Colony industrial Area, G.T. Road, Sliahdafa, Delhi (hereinafter referred lo as 'the subject laiid') are deemed to have lapsed in-view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Aci, 2013 (hereinafter refeited to as '2013 Act'), as the coriiperisatibn i'l respectthereofhas hot been paid' to the peti'dbners'alihoUgK of the subjesct land has been taken over. ^

2. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this petition are that a Notification under Section 4"6f the Land Acquisition Act, W.P.(C) 3510/2016 ' ^. - Page 1of[4] 2018:DHC:8629-DB 1894 (hereinafter: referred to as, 'the Act') was issued on 14.10.2005, a Declaration under Section 6 ofthe Act was issued on 05.10.2006 and an Award bearing No.1/2008-09,was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 22.07.2008.

3. Ml-. S.K. Rout, learned^counsel foi' the petitioners submits that although the physicalpossessionof subject land has been taken, however since the compensation in respect thereof has not been tendered, the petitioners would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and grant of compensation in terms of the 2013'Counsel also submits that his' submissions are furtherij®^ by the stand taken by the LAC iilvthfe counter affidavit.' ' ' "Vv-'''"'

4. Mr.' Sachin Nawani, learned counsel for the LAC has raised an objection with regard to:ithe maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioners are not' the recorded owners of the subject land. Counsel further subr-iits that the actual physical possession of the subject land has been taken over ori 09.09.2009 and handed over to the beneficiar}' department and the amount of compensation in -respect thereof- has been deposited in the Reference Court oh 22.03.2016. Counsel also submits that a petition seeking erihanceinent of cbiiipensation is also pending adjudication before the Reference" Court. Para 9 of tlie counter affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under: "9. That it is humhly siiBhiili'ed that in the present case provisions of section M of ther^dght-to fair compensation md Transparent Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 wouht not be applicable as the Xji.I,.. W.P.(C) 3510/2016 ' •' • Page 2 of[4]

5.

6. "r:' • '13;••.•-... • ".,. • 'r,;; possession ofland in question hgs already been taken over by the Government and hmded over to the beneficiary departmentfurther cpmpensation has been deposited before the reference cdurt oh 2^.03.2016 under 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Thus, the present petition of the petitioners is devoidofany meritand liable to be rejectedon this ground alone " No counter affidavit has beenfiled by DDA. We have heard ihe learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival subniissions^it

7. As far as the ol^ectioh with: regSxitto ihaintain^ility; is concerned, we find theiSame to be misplaced in view ofthe observations made by th^;i^ex Court hi the case ofGovi. ofNCfofDMii v, Manav Dharma Trust ami another, reported in 2017 (6) SCC 751 wherein definition of'interested person' has been given.-More particularly, para 28 oftins judgment reads as linc'er- "28. Thus, the subsequent purchaser, the assignee, the ': successor:in interest, •thepo)vcr-ofattorney holder, etc.,.are all persons who are interested in compensation/landowners/ affectedpersons in terms ofthe 2013 Act andsuchpersons: are entitled to fie a case forua:declaration that the land acquisitiqn pmceedings have lapsed byyirtue ofoperation ofSection 24(2) ofthe 2013 Act. It is a declaration qua the: land wherein indisputably they have an interest andthey are such a declaration, it cannot be said that the respondent-writ petitioners do not have any locus standi.

8. Keeping in mind the counter affidayit-^filed bythe LAC,'it is clear that actual pnysical possession of the subject land was taken over on 09.09.2009 and the amount ofcompensation has been deposited w.P.(C)3510/2016 Page3of[4];!'C V •; H in the Reference Court on22.03.2016 i.e. post coming into force of the 2013, Act and the Award having been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, we are of the considered view that the petitioners arc entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. However as the possession of the subject land has been taken over^ theVpetitioners'^ be ^ntoled to compensation as per the 2013; Act. Corhpensation be released within one year from today. Tt is ord'^il^d'accordingly.

9. We also it clear that we have not.expressed ahy. bpinlon on thd title ofthe subject land.,The question oftitle ofthe subject land is left open tobe decided in the appropriate court ofjui'isdiction.

10. The writ petition standsdisposed/ofin above terms. " 'SANG^TA G.S.SISTANI, J. SEPTEMBER 19,2018 SEHGAL, J. W.P.(C) 3510/2016 Page 4 of[4]