Damini Wadhwa v. Union of India and Ors

1. Pleadings are complete;^ccOTdmgly^;:&^^ writpetition is set downforfinal hearing?/■,-4?/: '

2. This is apetitionunder Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia filedby the petitioner seeking a declaration that the.acquisition proceedings with respect to land comprised in Khasra No. 627, measuring

1 Bigha 11 Biswas (1554 sq.yds.) situated in the revenue estate of village Maidan Garhi, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'subject land') stand 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 actual physical possession of the W.P.(C) 88/2017 2018:DHC:8552-DB (o subject land has been taken nor compensation in respect thereof has been paid. In this case,a notification under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 25.11.1980 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on 18.06.1985. Thereafter, an award bearing no.23/87-88 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 17.06.1987. Mr. N.S. Vasisht, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the physical possession ofthe 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. Learned,counsef iflirther relies on the decision rendered by the Suprerne Court-in. of NCT of Delhi Vs. ManavDharma Trustandahotlier,reported in 2017(6)SCC 751, in response to the stand taken by/LAC the counter affidavit that the petitioner has no Igeiisstgii^tolileth presentpetition as he is not the recorded owner.''Reiian|eLi's^ on para 28 of this judgment which reads as under:- "28. Thus, the'subsequentpurchase^ the assignee, the successor in interest, the power-of-attorney holder, etc., are all persons who are interested in compensation/landowners/ affected persons in terms ofthe 2013 Actandsuch persons are entitled tofile 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 W.P. (C)88/2017 Page2of[6] -1 declaration, it cannot be said that the respondent-writ petitioners do not have any locusstandi."

5. On the other hand,Mr.Panda learned counsel for the LAC submits that physical possession of the subject land has been taken and compensation has been tendered to the recorded owners.He further submits that it is not open for the petitioner to dispute the possession for the reason that the petitioner has purchased the subject land from Sh.Dharmender Kumar,Smt. Jaswanti Devi and Sh.Dharmender Kumarjointly legal heirs oflate Sh.Ashok Kumar vide Agreement to Sell dated 18;f)5.2006 i.e. post passing of the award, and the possessioh.was taken from the recorded owners to whom compensation was-alsb paid.RelevantPara(s)ofthe counter affidavit filed by LACfeads as under: "8. Thatin thepresentcase^dJiepossession ofthe land in question was take,pverpahd handed over to the beneficiary depdi^tp^nti on 16.07.1987 and as per Statement"A"compehsdiion waspaid to the recorded owners as under, ^ =■' J.'; SINo. Name Amount Remarks 317 Mansha 889420.79 Paid vide Ch. 0O.82537 dt. 14.09.87 318 Amar Singh 916988.71 Paidas below: 318/1 Dharamveer 222355.19 Paiddt.30.09.87 318/2 Jasgeet 222355.19 Paiddt.30.09.87 318/3 Mahaveer Singh 222355.19 Paiddt.30.09.87 318/4 Viay Singh 222355.19 Paiddt.30.09.87

9. It is submitted that the writpetition has beenfiled at the behest ofthe subsequentpurchaser who having W.P.(C) 88/2017 Page 3 of[6] fullknowledge aboutthestatus ofthelandin question got the land transferred after the same was notified for acquisition under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act,1894. The transfer was done in violation ofSection 4 Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, withoutfirst obtaining a written permission ofthe competentauthority under the Delhi Lands(Restrictions on Transfer)Act, 1972."

6. Counter affidavit has also been filed by DDA,relevant portion of which reads as under: "Thephysicalpossession ofthe land was handed over to the DDA by the LAC/L&B Department, Govt. of NCT ofDelhi on 16.07AA'Copy ofthe possession proceedings is annexed as

ANNEXURE-R3/1."

7. We have heard learned^coiirisel for the parties.

8. The learned counsel fop;the petitioner has submitted that neither physical possession of|tlie subject land has been taken nor compensation has beepjpaid to the petitioner. Counsel has also submitted that the objectionsofthe LAC,regarding locus standi of the petitioner is misplacedihwiew ofthe observations made bythe Supreme Court in Manav Dharma Trust(supra) where the rights ofthe subsequentpurGhaserrhaye been recbgnised.

9. Reading ofthe counter affidavit filed by LAC makes it clear that compensation was paid to the recorded owners on various dates. The names of the recorded owners, cheque numbers and their respective dates have been provided. Accordingly,the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that the compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner is without any force. As far as possession of the subject land is concerned, the counter affidavit W.P.(C)88/2017 c\ filed by LAC and DDA makes it clear that the possession ofthe subject land has been taken on 16.07.1987. In our view it is not open forthe petitioner who claims to be a subsequent purchaser,to raise the pleathatthe possession proceedings are notin accordance with law for the reason that the persons who received the compensation,at no point complained that physical possession has not been taken. This objection of the petitioner regarding possession is highly belated and rhisplaced.

10. We are ofthe considered view that thejudgement ofthe Supreme Court in the case ofManav Dharma Trust(supra)does not apply to the facts ofthe present case fbMhe reason that in this case the physical possession has bedp^ on 16.07.1987 and compensation has been paid to the.recorded owners in the year 1987 on various dates as detaM in para 5 above. In case the physical possession had:beenfakdn^M compensation having not been paid at all, in thdse the decision rendered in the case ofManavI)karm$^i^is0ra)would come to the aid and rescue ofthe petitioner.

11. Having regard to the;;submissions and the categorical assertion made in the counter affidavit filed by LAC as well by DDA,that the possession ofthe subject land has been taken over on 16.07.1987 and the compensation has been paid to the recorded owners, we are ofthe considered view that the relief so claimed and pressed beforethis Courtbythe petitioner cannotbe granted.

12. Hence we are ofthe view that the present petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. W.P.(C)88/2017 Page50/6 o C.M.No.494/2017(Stay)

13. The application stands disposed ofin view ofthe order passed in the writ petition.

MARCH 15,2018/gr « SANGITA ' r- ' ■4' ■. v: ■:i, iV: v.i' - iv;.. ^. ' />.•-, 'I-'.V. ■ h..: •, • G.S.SISTANI, J. G SEHGAL, J. W.P.(C) 88/2017 Page 6 of[6]