Rajesh Wadhwa v. Union of India & Ors.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated with respect to 1 bigha (1008 sq. yards) of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.941/623 situated in revenue estate of Village Maidan Garhi, NCT of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the subject land‟) is deemed to have lapsed as neither physical possession has been taken nor compensation has been tendered to the 2018:DHC:1541-DB petitioner. Reliance is placed on 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‟).

2. Counter affidavits have been filed by the LAC as also by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

3. As per the counter affidavits which have been filed, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition or claim benefit of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act as the compensation stands already paid to the recorded owners, namely, Bhim Singh, Hukum Chand, Bhaan Singh and Mehar Singh in the year 1987. It is also the case of the LAC that the physical possession of the land has been taken. The DDA has also stated in the counter affidavit that the possession was taken on 16.07.1987.

4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

5. Paragraph 3 (k) of the counter affidavit filed by the DDA reads as under: “3. (k)....After Notifications under Sections 4 & 6, the land was acquired vide Award No.23/1987-88. The physical possession of the land was handed over to the DDA by the LAC/L&B Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 16.7.1987. Copy of the possession proceedings is annexed as

ANNEXURE-1. It is further submitted that amount of compensation of Rupee One Hundred Crores only was remitted by the Central Government to L&B Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on account of compensation of 13 South Delhi Villages including Village Maidan Garhi. The amount of the compensation of the acquired land has been withdrawn by the original owners of the land vide Cheque No.81019 dated 31.08.87 as per Statement „A‟ provided by the Land Acquisition Collector, which is annexed as

ANNEXURE-2.”

6. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC would also be relevant for the purposes of deciding this writ petition and the same are reproduced below:

7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being the subsequent purchaser would fall in the larger definition of an „interested person‟. Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and another, reported in 2017 (6) SCC 751. He also contends that the physical possession of the land has not been taken and thus, he would be entitled to the relief so claimed. The submission of counsels for the LAC and DDA is that the petitioner cannot be termed as an „interested person‟ and the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present petition for the reason that the petitioner is not the recorded owner of the subject land. The counsel for the DDA has strongly contended that the physical possession has been taken over as far back as in the year 1987.

8. The question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the petitioner can be termed as an „interested person‟ and secondly, whether the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra) would apply to the facts of the present case.

9. Section 24(2) of 2013 Act reads as under:

10. Reading of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act would show that the acquisition proceedings would deem to have lapsed in case the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been tendered.