Vipin Chugh v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

1. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

2. 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 with respect of the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No.20/19 (1-5) situated in the revenue estate of village Pansali, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the subject land‟) are deemed to have lapsed in view of the fact that neither possession has been taken over nor compensation has been paid. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case compensation is granted as per the Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the New Act”). 2017:DHC:7875-DB

3. The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that a Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was issued on 27.10.1999. Section 6 declaration was made on 03.04.2004. Thereafter an Award was made on 24.05.2004.

4. Ms. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the counter affidavit filed by the LAC in support her submission that the compensation has not been paid. She submits that as per the counter affidavit of the LAC, the possession of the subject land has been taken but compensation could not be paid. The counsel for the petitioner submits that since the compensation has not been tendered, the petitioner would be entitled to a declaration and compensation under Section 24 (2) of the New Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner would be fully covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183.

5. Learned counsel for the LAC relies on para 6 of the counter affidavit to submit that the possession of the subject land has been taken but compensation has not been paid.

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

7. Two questions arise for our consideration. Firstly, as to whether the petitioner had been paid compensation and secondly, whether the possession of the subject land has been taken over or not. As far as payment of the compensation is concerned, all parties are in agreement that compensation has not been paid.

8. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner would be satisfied if compensation is paid as per the New Act although she relies on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Velaxan Kumar vs. Union of India and Others (2015) 4 SCC 325 in support of her submission that the Supreme Court has finally held that the actual physical possession of the land pertaining to village Pansali was not taken as the LAC did not follow the proper procedure as per law. Counsel submits that the Supreme Court took into account that large chunks of land were acquired measuring 1109.11 bighas situated in village Pansali on 12.05.2000. The Court took into account two previous judgments of the Supreme Court and held that since Panchnama was not prepared, it cannot be said that the physical possession was taken. Be that as it may, the petitioner is willing to accept the compensation as per the New Act.

9. Para 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under:

6. That it is submitted that the lands of village Pansali were notified vide Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 27.10.1999 which was followed by the Notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 3.4.2000. The Award was also passed vide Award No. 4-B/2002-03 dated 24.4.2004. It is further submitted that the possession of the land falling in Khasra number 20/19 (4-15) have been duly taken by the Government on the spot on 12.5.2000 (4-09) and 8.6.2000 (0-06) as such the land measuring (1-05) which is subject matter of the present writ petition was also taken possession of by the Government and handed over to the requisition agency on the spot by preparing possession proceeding on the spot however the compensation could not be paid to the petitioner.

10. Having regard to the fact that admittedly compensation has not been paid to the petitioners, we are of the view that the case of the petitioners would be fully covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. (supra). Paras 14 to 20 read as under:

18. 1894 Act being an expropriatory legislation has to be strictly followed. The procedure, mode and manner for payment of compensation are prescribed in Part V (Sections 31-34) of the 1894 Act. The Collector, with regard to the payment of compensation, can only act in the manner so provided. It is settled proposition of law (classic statement of Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad[1]) that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.