Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th JULY , 2017
CHANGA ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Minal Sehgal, Advocate.
Through : Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for L&B /LAC.
Mr.Ahmad Ziad, Advocate for R2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J. (OPEN COURT)
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition of his land measuring 1200 sq.yards (65 x 166) out of Khasra No.341- 342/83/2(min), Village Saroda Bangar, Revenue Estate Shahdara, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’) has lapsed in terms of Section 24 (2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. The petitioner avers that he purchased the suit land from one Harkesh (the recorded owner) on 12.04.1999 by way of execution of 2017:DHC:3619-DB GPA, Agreement to Sell, etc. The petitioner continues to be in physical possession of the suit land.
3. It is further averred that land measuring 1058 bighas and 9 biswas in village Chilla Saroda Bangar which included the suit land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, vide Award No.52-E/71-72 (Supplementary). After the award possession of only of agricultural land / open land was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector. Consequently, the possession of the suit land was not taken over due to pakka structure built upon it. It is further claimed that the compensation has not been offered or tendered to the petitioner for the acquisition of the suit land.
4. The respondent No.1 through LAC, in its counter-affidavit, in Paras (4, 4A & 5) stated:
5. It is evident that the petitioner is not the recorded owner of the suit land falling in Khasra No.341-342/83/2 min which was acquired in two parts for (1-02) and (2-10) respectively under the Award No.52-E/71-72 (Suppl). It further discloses that Gaon sabha has been shown to the recorded owner for the above-said khasra number having min for (1-02) whereas the other min for (2-10) has been shown in the names of private persons. Actual physical possession of the suit land has already been taken and handed over to DDA. It further records that having an apportionment dispute, the compensation in various khasra numbers including the suit land was sent to the Reference Court under Section 30-31 of the old Act for a sum of `10,87,645.12 on 16.04.1978 for land having min (1-02). Compensation of the land for other min i.e. (2-10), amounting to `1,35,117.44 was paid to the recorded owners.
6. The petitioner allegedly purchased the suit land in question from one Harkesh in 1999 on the basis of GPA, Agreement to Sell, etc. The petitioner never got the property mutated in his name. Nothing is on record to infer if any intimation was ever given by the petitioner to the concerned authorities regarding purchase of the property in question. These documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, etc. even are not registered ones. The petitioner has not placed on record any cogent or credible document to show if Harkesh from whom the property in question was allegedly purchased was the recorded owner of the suit land.
7. Since the petitioner has not filed any document on record to show as to how he was entitled to receive compensation, relief claimed cannot be granted to him under Section 24(2) of the Act.
8. The petition is dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.
S.P.GARG (JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE) JULY 17, 2017 / tr