Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of
JUDGMENT
SURAJ BHAN AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr.Manish Vats, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for L&B/LAC.
Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocate for R-2.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S. SISTANI, J. (Oral)
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 admeasuring 18 bighas and 19 biswas comprised in Khasra No.106 min (0-2), 124 min (0-2), 146 min (1-02), 198 min (0-3), 252 min (1-04), 253 min (1-04), 254 min (1-04), 255 min (1-04), 256 min (0-09), 575 min (1-02), 587 min (1-02), 594 min (1-02), 595 min (1-02), 771 min (0-17), 631 min (1-02), 632 min (1-02), 773 min (0-12), 776 min (0-12), 777 min (0-12), 780 min (0-12), 781 min (0-12), 784 min (0-12), 785 min (0-12), 788 min (0-12) situated in the revenue estate of village Jaffapur @ Hiran Kudna, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'subject land') are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2018:DHC:5129-DB Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as '2013 Act') as neither the actual physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor the compensation in respect thereof has been paid to the petitioners.
2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 18.07.1995 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on 14.12.1995. Thereafter, an award bearing no.10/1997-98 was passed on 12.12.1997.
3. Mr. Manish Vats, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation in respect thereof has been paid, thus the petitioners would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act.
4. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel for the LAC submits that neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation in respect thereof has been paid to the petitioners.
5. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the LAC has 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 of the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Manish Vats, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as far as objection with regard to the ownership and title is concerned, the case 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. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
8. Para.[4] of the counter affidavit filed by LAC reads as under:- "That it is submitted that the lands of village Jaffarpur @ Hiran Kunda were notified vide Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 18.07.1995 which was followed by the Notification under section 6 of the Act dated 14.12.1995. The award was also passed vide Award No.10/1997-98 dated 12.12.1997. It is submitted that possession of the subject land has not been taken and the compensation also could not be paid to the recorded owners."
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:
10. Reading of the counter affidavit filed by LAC makes it abundantly clear that neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation in respect thereof has been paid to the petitioners.
11. Taking into consideration the submissions made and the stand taken by LAC that neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation in respect thereof has been paid to the petitioners, we are of the considered view that the necessary ingredients of Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act stand satisfied. Since the award having been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and, having regard to the fact that neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation in respect thereof has been paid to the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act with regard to the subject land is deemed to have been lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.
12. However we make it clear that this order would not confer any title on the petitioners. The question of title of the subject land is left open to be decided in the appropriate court of jurisdiction.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. G.S.SISTANI, J. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J JULY 20, 2018 //afa