Full Text
Date of
JUDGMENT
DELHI SIMLA CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sandeep Bajaj and Mr.Soayib Qureshi, Advts.
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, standing counsel for
LAC/L&B.
Mr.Alamgir, Adv. for R-4.
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 petitioner comprised in Khasra no.34, measuring 200 sq. yds. situated in the revenue estate of village Okhla, 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 the compensation has not been tendered although physical possession has been taken.
2. It is submitted that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was issued 2018:DHC:3923-DB on 13.07.2000, a Section 6 declaration was made on 27.06.2001. Thereafter, an Award bearing no.7/1/2003-04/DC (S) was rendered on 20.07.2007.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the LAC in which the title of the petitioner has been challenged. However, it is stated that compensation appears not to have been paid. Learned counsel for the LAC relies on para 4 of the counter affidavit, which we reproduce below:
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner would be covered by the 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:-
5. Additionally, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is claiming compensation and also prays that the question of title may be kept open as per the view expressed by this Court in the case of Parshotam Joshi vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (C) 4255/2016 decided on 8th November, 2017, wherein a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Solanki v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. W.P.(C) 1999/2015 decided on 24th January, 2017 so also a subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Dhannu v. Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. W.P.(C) 3158/2015 decided on 16th November, 2017 were followed.
6. Counsel for respondent no.4 submits that the land has been handed over to Jamia Milia Islamia University and the same has been put to use. He further submits that the entire payment has been made to the DDA.
7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered their rival submissions.
8. Reading of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC leaves no room for doubt that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and thus, one of the two ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act are accordingly met.
9. Having regard to the fact that the compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner 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 and 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. However, as agreed, petitioner would only be entitled for compensation, which shall be paid to him within one year from today.
10. In above terms, the writ petition stands disposed of. G.S.SISTANI, J. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J JULY 05, 2018 rb