Veer Wati and Ors. v. The Land Acquisition Collector

1. The review applicant, Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’), seeks review of order dated 16th August 2018 (‘impugned order’) passed by this Court. By the said impugned order, the Court allowed the writ petition and declared the acquisition proceedings to have lapsed with respect to the subject land comprised in khasra no. 142/1 measuring 11 bighas and 12 biswas, situated in revenue estate or Village Kotla, Delhi.

2. The original Writ Petition no. 2714/2017 was filed seeking declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land would deem to have 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 compensation had been tendered nor possession of the subject land had been taken.

3. Notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the old Act) was issued on 13th November 1959; Section 6 declaration was made on 20th June 1966; and the Award bearing no. 19/1976-77 was rendered on 5th January 1977.

4. Counter affidavit was filed by the Land Acquisition Collector (‘LAC’), stating that area measuring 11 bighas, 12 biswas had not been taken over due to built-up, as per available record. The relevant extract is noted as under:

5. Taking note of this, the Court concluded that since no compensation had been tendered and possession had not been taken on the subject land, and the award had been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, and petitioners’ case was fully covered by provisions of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act and they were entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

6. DDA, through this review petition, claims that it is the beneficiary of this acquisition and was not made a party to the instant writ petition, despite being a necessary party.

7. DDA further alleged that possession of the subject land had been handed over to it and compensation in respect of the award was paid to the LAC/Land and Building Department (L&B). Thus, the petitioners were not eligible for benefit under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

8. DDA’s review petition relied on the decision rendered in 2020 by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority versus Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors 2020 SCC OnLine SC 316, which mandated the requirement of both possession not being taken and compensation not being paid as a necessary prerequisite for any lapse under Section 24 of the 2013 of Act.

9. Counsel for petitioners, however, objected to DDA’s cause of action for filing the review petition on the basis of the following facts: i. Post the judgment dated 16th August 2018 (the impugned judgment), on 01st September 2022, DDA came to the petitioners’ property to demolish the petitioners’ shops and godowns. Upon deliberation with petitioners who stated that they had not received any notice, the action was postponed. ii. Subsequently, petitioners approached DDA and made representations on the basis of the 16th August 2018 order. These representations are inter alia dated 5th September 2022 and 23rd September 2022. iii. Pursuant to the representations, Executive Magistrate (Mayur Vihar) sent a letter dated 7th September 2022 to DDA, informing about the petitioners’ representation and requested DDA to depute officials for proper identification of the government land through joint inspection. iv. Due to subsequent inaction by DDA, petitioners approached this Court in W.P. (C) 15152/2020 on 31st October 2022 (‘the second writ petition’). v. Second Writ Petition came up for hearing on 2nd November 2022, when this Court issued notice. DDA appeared on advanced notice, represented through counsel, and stated that the demolition action proposed to be taken was not in respect to the subject land but qua khasra no. 138 and 139, which were the subject matter of order dated 15th July 2022 passed by the Supreme Court in DDA v Chattar Singh and Ors, arising out of W.P.(C) 9981/2015. vi. On the basis of the proceedings before the Court on 2nd November 2022, petitioners’ counsel contended that the DDA, even if it did not have knowledge of the 16th August 2018 order, at least on 02nd November 2022, DDA was put to notice. It was clearly mentioned by the Court in its order dated 2nd November 2022 as under:

said land/property was quashed. It is submitted that the aforesaid order dated 16.08.2018 has attained finality.”

10. Meanwhile, a Special Leave Petition was filed by the LAC before the Supreme Court being SLP No. 36925/2022, assailing the impugned judgment dated 16th August 2018. While notice was issued on 13th December 2022 by the Supreme Court, the matter was disposed of on 25th April 2023 passing the following order: “Delay condoned. Taking into consideration the fact that by impugned judgment and order, the High Court has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question total admeasuring 11 bigas and 12 biswas is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 the possession of which was admittedly not taken due to built up, no interference of this Court is called for. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. Pending applications(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” (emphasis added)

11. Petitioners’ counsel contends that it was well within the powers of DDA to have intervened in the SLP filed by the LAC. Despite knowledge of 16th August 2018 order, DDA chose not to exercise that option and the Supreme Court's order, therefore, would stand as final and concluded.

12. The Supreme Court had clearly noted that the position of the subject land was “admittedly not taken due to built up” and dismissed the SLP, thereby giving its imprimatur declaring lapse of the acquisition proceedings.