Jitender Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners claim themselves to be co-owners of the land falling in plot No.6 forming part of Khasra No.1138/320 admeasuring 12 biswas situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Jhilmil Tahirpur, Shahdara, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’). The petitioners’ claim is that acquisition of 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. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old Act) was issued on 14.10.2005; it included the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 on 05.10.2006. The award 2017:DHC:3682-DB bearing No. 01/2008-09 dated 22.07.2008 was made by the Land Acquisition Collector.

3. The petitioners aver that they are co-owners of the suit land. The respondents took possession of the suit land but no compensation was paid or tendered to them as mandated under Section 31 of the Act. It is further averred that they had filed W.P.(C) 8351/2014 to seek compensation. The said writ petition stood disposed of by an order dated 11.12.2014. It reads as under: “We have heard counsel for the parties. The only prayer made in this writ petition is that a direction be issued to the respondents to release the compensation to the petitioners in terms of the Award No. 1/2008-09 (North East) dated 22.07.2008. The petitioners are directed to submit all the necessary documents within two weeks from today to the respondent no.2. The compensation shall thereafter be paid to the petitioners, as per law, within ten weeks including the statutory interest. The writ petition is disposed of as above.”

4. The petitioners further state that part payment of the compensation was made to them by the respondents reluctantly on 14.07.2015 by issuing four cheques in the sum of `5,11,075/- each. Relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., 2014 (3) SCC 183, counsel urged that the acquisition has lapsed since five year period indicated in Section 24(2) of the Act has ended.

5. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi through LAC, in its counteraffidavit, states in Paras (6, 7 & 8):

6. It is evident that though the possession of the suit land was taken over by the respondents, however, no compensation was paid or tendered to the petitioners. The petitioners had to move this Court to get compensation by filing W.P.(C) 8351/2014 which directed the respondents to release the compensation in terms of award bearing NO. 01/2008-09 dated 22.07.2008 within ten weeks. Apparently, the respondents had not paid or tendered the compensation to the petitioners though their land was acquired and taken over. The respondents have not explained in the counter-affidavit as to why the compensation was not paid or tendered to the petitioners. The Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the argument that the order in the previous writ petition, being Jitender Kumar and Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr. [W.P.(C) 8351/2014, decided on 11.12.2014] precluded a challenge under Section 24(2) of the Act by operation of principles of doctrine of constructive res judicata.

7. Having regard to the nature of the statutory mandate under Section 24(2) of the Act which does not spell-out any exceptions either by way of the period spent during interim orders given by the Courts or in the case of compensation paid, with or without the aid of the Court. The petitioners are entitled to the relief under that provision.

8. Therefore, a declaration is issued that the acquisition of suit land is deemed to have lapsed to that extent. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

S.P.GARG (JUDGE)

S. RAVINDRA BHAT

(JUDGE) JULY 18, 2017 / tr