Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 25th JULY , 2017
KARTARI DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through : None.
Through : Mr.Manish Mohan, CGSC for UOI.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for Mr.Siddhartha Panda, Standing Counsel for L&B/LAC.
Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal,Standing Counsel for DDA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J. (OPEN COURT)
JUDGMENT
1. Present writ petition was preferred by Kartari Devi through her attorney Jeet Singh to seek a declaration that acquisition in respect of land in Khasra No. 1159/120/1/3/1 min (North) (1-3) and Khasra NO. 1159/120/1/1 min (West) (1-6) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Madan Pur Khadar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’) has lapsed by virtue 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 necessary facts are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old Act) was issued on 04.04.1964; it included the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 on 07.12.1966. The award bearing No.87/80-81/Suppl. dated 30.12.1981 was made by the Land Acquisition Collector. 2017:DHC:3901-DB
3. The petitioner avers that she is the recorded owner of the suit land. She further avers that pursuant to the award, neither physical possession of the suit land was taken over by the respondents nor any compensation in respect thereof was ever paid or tendered.
4. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi through LAC, in its counter-affidavit, states in Para (6):
5. It is evident that the possession of the suit land bearing Khasra No.1159/120/1/3/1 (00-05) and 1159/120/1/1 (1-04) has been taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department on 05.02.1982. It is further informed that the name of the petitioner’s husband was entered against ‘shumar’ no. 240 and the claimant was having only 168/246th share. The petitioner, however, is seeking relief with respect to suit land though her share is only 168/246th share. She is not clear as to which portion of the Khasra had fallen into her share. Compensation is stated to have been deposited in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge under Sections 30/31 of old Act as the share of the petitioner or her husband was not ascertainable. Nothing is on record to show if the petitioner ever approached the respondent / Court of learned Addl. District Judge to claim compensation for any specific share.
6. It is further relevant to note that petitioner Kartari Devi has since expired. Apparently, Power of Attorney executed by her in favour of Jeet Singh has come to an end. The legal heirs of the deceased Kartari Devi were brought on record. They have, however, not disclosed as to, to what extent they are having share in the suit land.
7. In view of the above facts, the relief claimed under Section 24 (2) of the Act cannot be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of. S.P.GARG JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE) JULY 25, 2017 / tr