Deepak Chhabra and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to land of the petitioners situated in the revenue estate of Village Karala, Utsav Vihar, Delhi 110081 (hereinafter referred as the 'subject land') as detailed herein after, are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) 2018:DHC:4952-DB of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as '2013 Act') as the compensation in respect thereof has not been paid to the petitioners although physical possession of the subject land has been taken over. The petitioners claim the above relief in respect of the following land: Khasra No. Area Village 73/12 450 sq. yards Karala, Utsav Vihar, Delhi-110081 73/14 1bigha ½ biswa 73/16 1400 sq. yards 73/17 1 Bigha, 482 sq. yards 73/18 3700 sq. yards 73/19 1732 sq. yards 73/22 300 sq. yards 73/23 1162 sq. yards 73/24 232 sq. yards 83/1 250 sq. yards 83/4 2176 sq. yards 83/5/1 200 sq. yards 83/5/2 400 sq. yards

2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 21.03.2003 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on 19.03.2004. Thereafter, an award bearing no.22/2005-06/DC/(N-W) was passed on 02.01.2006 under Section 11 of the Act.

3. Mr. De, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has drawn the attention of the Court to para 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC as per which only part possession of the subject land had been taken over by the Government and thereafter the same was handed over to the concerned authority. As far as the payment of compensation is concerned, it has been clearly averred in para 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC that the same has not been paid to the petitioners. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24(2) of the Act.

4. Mr Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel for the LAC, submits that only part possession of the subject land has been taken over and compensation in respect thereof has not been paid to the recorded owners. Paras 7 and 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under:- “7. That the Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award bearing No. 22/2005-06 dated 02.01.2006 and it is submitted that the physical possession of the land of the certain Khasra Nos. in village Karalawere taken in part by the Government and handedover the same to the respective authority.” “8. That the Petitioners in the present writ Petition are not the recorded owners and have purchased the Land through General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, ranging from 100 sq. yards to 2176 sq. yards. It further submitted that it is difficult for the answering Respondent to ascertain that from which plot holder the same possession in part has been taken. Therefore, the details from the Revenue Records are herein below:- ITE M No. Recorded owners Khasra nos. Date of possession Remaining land Compensation 396 Vikas Mathur S/o. Dharambir 73//12 (4-16) (4-06) was taken on 21.02.2007 (0-10) Not Paid 393- There are different recorded owners at the items mentioned item No. 398(1- 10), item No. (1-00), item Nos. 393-395 (2-02) 73//14 (4-12) (3-05) was taken on (1-07) Not Paid 645 Surjan s/o. Badlu 73//16 (4-16) Not Taken (4-16) Not Paid There are different recorded item No. 645(1- 16), item NO. 653(1-00),item No. 654(1-00) item No. 656(1- 00) 73//17 (4-16) (1-15) on (3-01) Not Paid 393- Dharambir, Mehtab Singh and Satpal Singh s/o. Mange Ram (having 1/3rd share each) 73//18 (4-16) (4-04) taken on 21.02.2007 (0-12) Not Paid 759 Gram Sabha 73//19 (4-16) (4-10) Taken on (0-06) Not Paid 759 Gram Sabha 73//22 (4-12) taken (0-04) Not Paid (4-16) on 21.02.2007 650item No. 645(0- 16), item NO. 646(2-00), item No. 649(1-00) item No. 650- 651 (1-00) 73//23 (4-16) (4-16) taken on - Not paid. item No. 645(0- 15), item NO. 646(1-00), item No. 652(1-00) item No. 655 (2-

01) 73//24 (4-16) (1-00) taken on21.02.2007 (3-16) Not Paid 759 Gram Sabha 83//1 (4-09) (2-00) taken (2-09) Not Paid Badlu 83//4 (4-12) (3-11) taken (1-01) Not Paid Badlu 83//5/1 (2-00) Not taken (2-00) Not Paid 36- Mange Ram, Suraj Bhan, Diwan Singh, Inder Singh, Satbir Singh s/o. Kirti Singh (having 1/5th share each) 83//5/2 (2-12) Not taken (2-12) Not Paid

5. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the LAC has however opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioners are claiming relief based on General Power of Attorney, Will, receipt etc. which cannot confer title on the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as far as objection with regard to the ownership and title is concerned, the case of the petitioners would be covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Manav Dharma Trust and another, reported in 2017 (6) SCC 751.

7. Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta, learned counsel for the DDA, submits that physical possession of the subject land had been handed over to DDA by L&B / LAC on 21-02-2007 and the same was further transferred to JE/RPD on 18-07-2007. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit filed by the DDA reads as under:- “…it is also submitted that the physical possession of Khasra No. 73/12min (4-6), 14 min (3-5), 18 min (4-4), 19 min (4-10), 22 min, (4-12), 23 (4-16), 24 min (1-00), 83/1 min, (2- 0), 4 min, (3-11), has been handed over to DDA by L&B / LAC on 21-02-2007 and some further transferred to JE/RPD on 18- 07-2007. The payment to compensation has been sent to L&B /LAC vide Cheque NO. 094622 dated 06-06-2006 to Rs. 1,04,06,06,716/- against Award No. 22/2005-06/DC/NW.”

8. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.

9. Having regard to the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Manav Dharma Trust (Supra), in our view the objection raised by Mr. Jain, learned Standing Counsel for LAC/L&B is misplaced. In the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra), the Apex Court has held as under:

have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is a 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 standi."

10. Having regard to the categorical stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the LAC that part physical possession of the subject land has been taken over by the Government and compensation in respect thereof has not been paid to the recorded owners, and also taking into consideration the fact that the award having been announced five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, in our view, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly. As the petitioner has restricted his claim to payment of compensation in terms of the Act of 2013, compensation be paid to the petitioners within one year from today.

11. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. G.S.SISTANI, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J AUGUST 07, 2018 SU