Deepak Arora and Ors. v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.

1. Counter affidavits have been filed by PWD as also by the LAC. However, no counter affidavit has been filed by the DDA.

2. By the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek a declaration that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra nos.34 & 45 min, situated in the revenue estate of village Nangli Jalib, Delhi are deemed to have lapsed as neither the physical possession has been taken nor the compensation has been tendered to the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners have registered sale deeds in their favour. Counsel for the petitioners has laboured hard to contend that the orders passed in civil suit being CS (OS) 174/2016 dated 08.05.2017 and 08.04.2016 as also the 2018:DHC:3616-DB order dated 31.05.2017 dismissing the appeal being FAO(OS) No.161/2017 filed against the order dated 08.05.2017 and the order dated 23.04.2018 passed in review petition being Review Petition no.270/2017, would have no bearing, as the grounds available to the petitioners under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as the „2013 Act‟) were not urged in the aforesaid proceedings. She submits that the law is well settled that in case neither physical possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed.

3. Ms. Marwaha, counsel for the petitioners further submits that the PWD is not the beneficiary department of the land acquired, and, they were only beneficiary of 63 bighas 7 biswas of land. For the above reasons, the petitioners seek stay of dispossession.

4. Counsel for the respondent submits that from the year 1997, the petitioners have successfully thwarted the demolition action, which is sought to be taken by the statutory body. It is contended that in the year 1997, writ petition being W.P. (C) 2006/1997 was filed. She submits that the learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 08.04.2016 in the civil suit has observed, how the petitioners have successfully not allowed the statutory authority to carry out the demolition and in the process the public project has not been completed. Counsel has drawn attention of the Court to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.1. Reliance is placed on paras 18 to 23 of the counter affidavit, which we reproduce below: “18. That the properties are affecting the full implementation of the approved scheme as the construction of drain, footpath, service lane cum cycle track is not feasible at some pockets due to the encroachment by the petitioners. therefore, the contention of petitioners are that the Government is malafidely trying to evict the petitioners from the private lands when it is not required is wrong and misguided.

19. That the 6-Lane elevated corridor has been opened for traffic but construction of drain, footpath, service lane cum cycle track and green belt etc. could not be completed at few locations in the stretch due to encroachment on 60m right of way of Outer Ring Road by properties of the petitioners. The removal of encroachment is being hindered by petitioners since 1997 by filing various petitions in the Hon‟ble High Court as well as in lower courts.

20. That the approved scheme of UTTIPEC has already been brought to the notice of the Hon‟ble High Court in Amrit Lal Ghai & Ors. V/s DDA & Ors., W.P. (C) 313- 319/2005 and other connected matters. As the properties are constructed in the right of way of Outer Ring Road after proper land acquisition and takeover of physical possession of the land by the LAC and DDA long back in the year 1973-74 therefore the petitioner‟s cannot be allowed to thwart the public project anymore.

21. That the right of way of Outer Ring Road has been 60m since the beginning. The answering respondent did not abandon the widening / development of Outer Ring Road as per 60m Right of way at any point o time, till date. The petitioners contrary submissions in this regard are absolutely incorrect, false and mala fide.

22. That the answering respondent are trying their best to remove the encroachment since 1997 but petitioner is trying to delay the same by embroiling the government agencies in litigation. The petitioners and others similar situated like him have lost multiple litigations, yet they relentlessly keep filing suits and writ petitions, despite being barred by principles of constructeve res judicata. The mandate of the answering respondent is to construct all the components of the scheme approved by UTTIPEC in the year 2010 including the service lane / slip road etc.

23. That the land has already been acquired by Government vide award No.20/1973-74 and physical possession has already been obtained by Government. Hence, there is no question of re-acquiring the land under the new Act of 2013. Moreover, the physical possession of the land acquired in year 1973-74 has already been taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector and further handed over to DDA on 21.07.1973, thus the New Act of 2013 does not apply at all.”

5. Counsel for the respondent submits that the notice was issued on 08.03.2016 to the occupants to vacate the premises within one month. However, demolition action could not be taken as there was change in the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. She further submits that the petitioners have also filed writ petitions being W.P.(C) 313-19/2005, 3818/2014, 3846/2014, 7372/2014, which were dismissed by an order dated 07.10.2015. She contends that due to the petitions being filed, the public project could not be completed. We may note that on the last date of hearing, we had issued notice and adjourned the matter for today. While issuing notice, no stay was granted. The submissions made by Ms. Marwaha, counsel for the petitioners, can only be tested when the petition is set down for final hearing and disposal and having regard to the orders passed from time to time as also the stand taken by the PWD in the counter affidavit, which we have also extracted in the afore-going paras and also having regard to the importance of public project where the overbridge has been constructed but the cycle track, service lane track and footpath are lying incomplete, we decline to grant any stay in the matter.

6. Stay application being CM APPL 19586/2018 is accordingly dismissed.

7. Counter affidavit be filed by the DDA within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within six weeks thereafter.

8. List on 27.08.2018. G.S.SISTANI, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J MAY 30, 2018