Full Text
JUDGMENT
REETA DEVI..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Through : Mr.Sanjay Kr Pathak, Ms.Koumuki Kiran Pathak, Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr.Kushal Raj Tater, Advocates for L&B/LAC.
Mr.S.K.Seth and Ms.Dolly Sharma, Advocates for respondent Nos.4&5.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA YOGESH KHANNA, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner claims to be a part owner of plot bearing No.16, admeasuring 150 square yards, falling in Khasra No.140/2, in the revenue estate of Village Dichaon Kalan, Delhi. The petitioner claims to have purchased the property on 05.01.2001 on the basis of documents viz GPA etc and says to be in possession of the subject land since its purchase.
2. On 07.04.2006, land admeasuring 407 bigha 19 biswas of 2017:DHC:2343-DB village Dichaon Kalan, Delhi was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide notification bearing No.F.9(88) 2004/L&B/LA/176. The objections were called and on 04.04.2007 the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued since the land was required to be taken over for the construction of 100 meter road under the Planned Development of Delhi.
3. On 31.12.2011 public notice was issued under Section 17(2) of the Act for vacating all structures in the aforesaid Khasra numbers. The petitioner alleges that neither the possession of her land was taken by the appropriate government nor any compensation paid to her and hence she claims benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by way of this petition.
4. Paragraph Nos.[7] & 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector is as under:-
5. Thus, according to the respondents, the recorded owners of subject land are one Shiv Kumar s/o Madan Lal and the Gram Sabha, as per Naksha Muntzamin. Moreover, the possession proceeding report shows that possession of subject land comprised in Khasra No.140//2 (1-17) was also taken by the appropriate government on 10.02.2012. Suffice is to say that once the possession is taken by the appropriate government, the possession of the petitioner, if any, can only be treated as that of a trustee on behalf of public at large and cannot be a ground for enhanced compensation.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a recorded owner of the land nor her name figures in the list of claimants in award. Therefore, there was no question of tendering or paying any compensation to her. Nevertheless, the compensation amount of `4,75,76,597/- is still lying deposited in the Court of Additional District Judge vide cheque No.847117 dated 27.12.2013. Hence, no ground is made out for grant of benefit to her under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
7. Consequently, the writ petition and pending miscellaneous application are dismissed.
YOGESH KHANNA, J
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J