Full Text
Date of
JUDGMENT
SHRI SIRAJUDDIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocate for LAC/L&B.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra Nos. 409 admeasuring 875 Sq. Yards in the revenue State of Village Jasola, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject land’) is deemed to have been 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 possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid to the petitioner.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the same Khasra number i.e. 409 has already lapsed in terms of the order passed by this Court in W. P. (C) 2018:DHC:1214-DB 1880/2017 titled as Sarfaraz Ahmad Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. and identical objections raised have not been accepted by the Court.
3. In this case, 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 22.06.1990 and an Award bearing No.21/1992-93 was passed on 18.06.1992.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by LAC. As per para 7 of the counter affidavit, compensation has not been paid to the recorded owners based on the Naksha Mutzamim. However, an objection has been raised with regard to the locus standi of the petitioner.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Para 7 of the counter affidavit reads as under:
7. It may be noted that the subject land pertains to khasra No. 409, two writ petitions pertains to Khasra No. 409 being W. P. (C) 1880/2017 and 3714/2015 have already been allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser of the subject land and copy of agreement to sell has been filed on record. He further submits that his case would be covered by 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.
9. In the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra), the Apex Court has held as under:
10. Having regard to the observation made by the Apex Court in Manav Dharma Trust (Supra), in our view the objection raised by learned counsel for LAC/L&B is misplaced. However, we make it clear that this order would not confirm the title of the petitioner.
11. Reading of the counter affidavit would show that the compensation has not been paid to the recorded owner. Resultantly, it is declared that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to land of the petitioner is deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act. We accept the undertaking given by the petitioner that they have not received the compensation and they shall remain bound by the same. Should it be proved otherwise, it could amount to making a false statement to the Court.
12. Since, the award having been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the petitioner is entitled to declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of. CM APPLN. No. 33691/2016 The present application stands disposed of in view of the order passed in the writ petition. G.S.SISTANI, J. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J FEBRUARY 19, 2018 gr