Vijay Trishal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

3. In the present case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 21.03.2003 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on 19.03.2004. Thereafter, an award bearing no.22/2005-06 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 28.12.2005.

4. Mr. Puneet Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the physical possession of the subject land has not been taken and compensation in respect thereof has ·not been paid, the petitioner would be entitled to a d_eclaration under~:Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. Learned ·counsel.,"further relies on.the decision ' ~-..-~.... ' •",>. rendered by the Supreme;. CO.ufi;..i#_.:~(;o,·vt~ of NCt of Delhi Vs. Manav.Dharma Trust a~d)lndti/(!~~~,i~~·orted in.2017 (6)SCC 751,.:/.·~·-·..:~~->-,..~;(._~:~~ ·:.:·_:!~~/·.~/:' in response to the stand;;tak,en:b:y; tAC that the petitioner has no I;:,:· i:-"::·.·:.~. ~~ •'.' ':. locus standi to file the p~eseht:p,etitibn as he is not the recorded,:. I.,:.~. ~-: ~·t:, ~::\, ~.\ owner. Reliance is plaq~_q:qb).par~·.::·:es)~£thisjudgment which reads.._._,~·;_:·...:,·;.J<:;·~·..,::~::;~r;~;:::;\ ·,:\ as under.- -· ·...,:.·.....,.~,..,,.,,...,.:,::)gi,{!'~~:~.· S.{J,)t.·'

holder, etc.,,_are all persons whCJ;.. are interested in compensationltc;in{!qlJ,h~r:sl q!fe~t~fi)persons in terms ofthe 2013 Act and slJC:h;pers(Jns':are entitled to file a case for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) ofthe 2013 Act. It is a declaration qua the land wherein indisputably they have an interest and they are affected by such acquisition. For such a declaration, it cannot be said that the respondent-writ petitioners do not have any locus standi. " W.P.(C) 5259/2016 Page2of[5]

5. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, counsel for the LAC submits that out oftotal land measuring 4 Bighas 16 Biswas comprised in Khasra No.54//16min,_ actual vacant physical possession of 4 Bighas 13 Biswas was taken in the year 2007 and handed over to the DDA, and the compensation amount in respect thereof has not been paid to the recorded owner. Mr. Jain has also opposed this petition on the ground that the petitioner is claiming benefit under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act based on General· Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell which cannot.~onfer title on the petitioner as the same are not admissible mod~\ 9ftransfer. Relevant portion of the counter affidavit filed by:·L:Ac·:·-r~:~ds,is·.~nder: '. ':.,· ~ '..;,,:~ \::i:'t~.-' ¥ ·-~. "That the presenf'lf~itpe~(iio~f.;~s:liable to be dismissed as petitioner is not':the r~ciir.ded'owner of the subject land but the prese.nt,Vvh~{pefft~f:/n has been filed in the name ofthepetitiqner. whq:'i$ i:)aiming to be the GPA holder. The GPA\.fl~ldef;\c"a~not maintain the writ petition in his.o~~.~_:firJYIJ~-·;-q~'-;tfi~'JJPAI Agreement to Sell/ Affidavit e.tc: '.d,~~s~~~?.if:(;~ofif~t any right, title or interest on the ji~tittq~i;r:f!~j~e~~: documents are not the admissible mddes'·ojii-an'S/eioflands. XXX r.··· {."'.. It is pertinent:ii/ijierztio,n:her..<p~ha(but ofthe total land measuring 4-16, the. gover~'fl/ent has taken physical possession of(4-13) and (0-03) could not be taken. XXX The Award was also passed vide Award No. 22/2005- 06 dated 28.12.2005 and the possession of the lands falling in.khasra number 54//16min (4-13) was also taken in the year 2007 itself on the·spot and handed over to the DDA on the spot by preparing possession proceeding on the spot. The recorded owner never W.P.(C) 5259/2016 Page[3] ofS turned up- to claim compensation as he perhaps sold the lands through unauthorized modes oftransfer. "

6. We have heard learned 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 ofthe _observations made by the Supreme Court. in Manav Dharma Trust. (supra) where the rights ofthe subsequent purchaserh~y~J~eel). r~cognised. Reading of the counter-dftl.da~if;·ine~;,by:fAC mak~s it clear out of

8. • -~ '' ~.~·-: ~~•.• ~,l -. ·_./i,-,.~'.~'~.~'<"':_. --~~:·i:·:-- •....• \ the total land measurni.~ ~·).;3Igl}~~~H:·f)?lswas compnse~ m Khasra No.54//16, the actual..pB);sical;:.p!bs~~~~ion of only 4 Bighas 13:: ',.- ', "' ' '::'!. Biswas has been taken in:the·-~ear,: 2007 and the compensation in - _.... -~ 11;.:- 1,·.·:,';J.t..·_, _,-.:·· respect of the entire arei -~Pf s4~j~~t land has not been paid to;~~~4 -~<:~·:·_ __,.~.../. ··.·'-~-~\.'·::_·.._ ·~,..>··:_ recorded owner. As.-.-='faf· ~~~~~~;thefJ9b}~ction with regard to the..,j·t··. _·._ -·,·;_..·~::~~ -{~~J.t·,:::.-:~_q...r~;~..~·;..:~maintainability is con~G:~m~4t'!~~;;:flild:J}Je same to be misplaced in ·!·· ·-·-1~/:r:.~·l-t"t.,•"n~,.·~~~·· _~!:--. view ofthe observation~-rri~'ct"e-b~'~tfie-Supreme Court in the case of Manav Dharma Tr:qs.((supr.,a). AccordiggJy, the submissions made o.::_~ J_~-\--~-~-:::~-,.:·;~-~...;;~;; ··:~~-~~:.:-=-;·:: ·r:~<-J 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. Having regard to the submissions made and the categorical assertion made in the counter affidavit filed by LAC, that part possession ofthe subject land has been taken and the compensation in respect of the entire area of subject land has not been paid to the W.P.'(C) 525912016 Page4of[5] / / petitioner arid 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 the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.

10. It is also made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the title of the above land. The question of title of the subject land is left open to be decided in the appr-opriate courtofjurisdiction.

11. The writ petition stands di~pb~~d:,_Bfin the. abov~ te~s.·.. ·.. ',·····. <:~~.Q•• ~. G.S.SISTANI; J:-- MARCH 20, 2018 ·~:-..