Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of
JUDGMENT
URMILA SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Anupriya Singh with Mr. Atul Tripathi, Advocates.
Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
L&B/LAC.
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Adv. for DDA.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceeding with respect to the land of the petitioner i.e. plot no.37A measuring 100 sq. yds. out of Khasra no.624/2 (3-14) & 625/2 (2-12), situated in the revenue estate of village Roshanpura, abadi known as Shyam Vihar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „subject land‟) stands 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 the „2013 Act‟) as neither the physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor the compensation has been tendered to the petitioner.
2. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that in this case a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition 2018:DHC:1368-DB Act, 1894 („the Act‟ in short) was issued on 07.04.2006 and a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 04.04.2007. Thereafter, an award bearing no.08/2008-09/SW was announced on 14.11.2008.
3. Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the LAC has drawn attention of the Court to para 4 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under and submits that the petitioner is not the recorded owner and the land vests in Gaon Sabha:-
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an identical issue had arisen before another 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 reads as under:-
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Since, in the present case, neither the physical possession of the subject land has been taken (being built up) nor compensation has been tendered and the award having been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the case of the petitioner would be fully covered by the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act.
6. As far as ownership of subject land is concerned, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the title of the subject land and the same is kept open, which would be decided in appropriate courts of jurisdiction.
7. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. It is declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the subject land stand lapsed.
8. The writ petition is disposed of. G.S.SISTANI, J. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. FEBRUARY 23, 2018/ck/