Jasbir Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

1. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to (01-00) 1/72th share of the land comprised in Khasra No. 89/3/1(07-16) and 89/3/2(64-05) admeasuring 72 Bighas 01 Biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Ghonda Gujran Khadar Shahdra, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject land’) is 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 ‘2013 Act’), as neither the physical 2018:DHC:1664-DB possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation has been paid to the petitioner.

3. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this petition are that a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 23.06.1989, a Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 20.06.1990 and an Award bearing No.8/92-93 was passed on 19.6.1992.

4. Mr. Sunil K. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the physical possession of the subject land has not been taken and the compensation in respect thereof has not been paid, the petitioner would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. He further submits that his submission is further fortified by the stand taken by the LAC in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel further relies on 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, in response to the stand taken by LAC in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as he is not the recorded owner. Reliance is placed on para 28 of this judgment which reads as under:-

5. On the other hand, Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel for the LAC has raised an objection that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner were not the recorded owner of the subject land and the Gaon Sabha was shown as the recorded owner in the revenue records, hence the petitioner has no right over the subject land. Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner is claiming the benefits under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act based on GPA, will receipt etc which cannot confer title on the petitioner. In support of his submissions, counsel for LAC relies on para 6 of the counter affidavit, which read as under:

6. We have heard the counsel for the parties.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation has been paid to the petitioner. Counsel has also submitted that the objections of the LAC regarding locus standi of the petitioner is misplaced in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Manav Dharma Trust (supra) where the rights of the subsequent purchaser have been recognised.

8. As far as the objection with regard to maintainability is concerned, we find the same to be misplaced in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra). Accordingly, the submissions made by the counsel for the LAC that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as he is the subsequent purchaser, holds no ground.

9. In relation to the objection raised by the counsel for the LAC with regard to the land being vested in the Gaon Sabha is concerned, we deem it appropriate to follow a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Solanki Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors, W.P. (C) 1999/2015, decided on 24.01.2017, paragraph 5 of which reads as under:-

10. As per the counter affidavit filed by LAC, it is clear that the possession of the subject land has been taken on 21.03.2007 which is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. As far as payment of compensation is concerned, counsel for LAC submits that the the compensation with respect to 1 Bigha i.e. 1/72th share of the total land admeasuring 72 Bighas 01 Biswas comprised in Khasra NO. 89/3/1(07-16) and 89/3/2(64-05) has not been tendered to the petitioner as being assessed in the name of Gaon Sabha.

11. Having regard to the submissions made in the counter affidavit filed by LAC that the compensation has not been paid in respect of the entire area of the subject land and since the award has been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act with regard to that portion of the subject land in respect of which compensation has not been paid, are deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.