Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th JULY , 2017
SUNIL ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Minal Sehgal, Advocate.
Through : Mr.Ajay Verma, St.Standing Counsel with Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for
DDA.
Mr.R.A.Iyer, Advocate for Mr.Gautam Narayan, ASC for R3 & R4.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms.Jyoti
Tyagi, Advocate for L&B /LAC.
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 442 sq.yards (24 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’). 2017:DHC:3620-DB
2. The petitioner avers that his father Ch.Suraj Singh had purchased the suit land from one Harkesh (the recorded owner) on 10.08.1992 by way of execution of GPA, Agreement to Sell, etc. A kuchcha room was constructed on the suit land and business of dairy farm was carried out thereon. Ch.Suraj Singh expired on 03.02.1996. 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 though the possession of the agricultural land / open land was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector but possession of the certain built up properties was not taken. Consequently, the possession of the suit land was not taken over due to pakka / built up area. 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, denied it. It reads:
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 shown to the recorded owner for the above-said khasra number having (min) for (1-02) whereas the other (min) for (2-10) have 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’s father allegedly purchased the suit land in question from one Harkesh in 1992 on the basis of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will, etc. The petitioner or his father never got the property mutated in their names. Nothing is on record to infer if any intimation was ever given by the petitioner or his father to the concerned authorities regarding purchase of the property in question. These documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, etc. even are not registered. The petitioner has not placed on record any cogent or credible document to show if Harkesh from whom the property in question was 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