Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of
JUDGMENT
RAJA RAM JINDAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anil K. Aggarwal, Advocate.
Through Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jha, Advocate for UOI.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate, for
L&B/LAC.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the land of petitioners comprised in Khasra no.35/3 min and 30/23 min total measuring 1 bigha 7 biswas i.e. 1352 sq. yds., situated in the revenue estate of village Rani Khera, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject land’) 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 Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2013 Act’), as neither the compensation has been tendered to the petitioner nor physical possession of the subject land has been taken. 2018:DHC:5094-DB
2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 21.03.2003. Thereafter a Section 6 declaration was made on 18.03.2004. An Award bearing no.08/2005-06 was rendered on 28.06.2005.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case neither compensation has been tendered to the petitioner nor possession of the subject land has been taken.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the LAC in which the title of the petitioner has been challenged. However, it is averred therein that neither compensation has been paid nor possession of subject land has been taken. Paras 4 and 5 of counter affidavit filed by the LAC read as under:
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchase the land measuring 1 bigha, 7 biswas and 7 biswani vide agreement to sell dated 30.06.1997 prior to Section 4 notification. Reliance is placed on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharma Trust and another, reported in 2017 (6) SCC 751 wherein definition of ‘interested person’ has been given, more particularly, para 28 of this judgment reads as under:-
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.
7. The objections raised by the counsel for the LAC with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of locus standi is without any force in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Manav Dharma Trust and another(supra).
8. Reading of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC leaves no room for doubt that neither possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation has been tendered to the petitioner or the recorded owner and thus, the necessary ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act are accordingly met.
9. Having regard to the fact that no compensation has been tendered to the petitioner or the recorded owner and also possession of the subject land has not been taken and since the Award having been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the case of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, thus, the petitioner is 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. It is ordered accordingly.
10. We have not expressed any opinion on the title of the parties. The question of title of the subject land is left open to be decided in the appropriate court of jurisdiction.
11. In above terms, the writ petition stands disposed of. G.S.SISTANI, J. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J AUGUST 13, 2018 ck