Full Text
Translation output
$—35
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)9199/2015,CM APPL.20988/2015
VIKASLAL Petitioner
Through:Mr.Arun Kr.Kaushik,Advocate.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)9199/2015,CM APPL.20988/2015
VIKASLAL Petitioner
Through:Mr.Arun Kr.Kaushik,Advocate.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents
Through:Mr.Sidhartha Panda,Standing Counselfor
LAC/L&B.
Mr.Pawan Mathur,counsel for DDA.
Mr.Chiranjiv Kumar,Advocate for UOI.
Through:Mr.Sidhartha Panda,Standing Counselfor
LAC/L&B.
Mr.Pawan Mathur,counsel for DDA.
Mr.Chiranjiv Kumar,Advocate for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
25.04.2017 In this petition, the relief claimed is the declaration that the acquisition ofland in question i.e., khasra no.500(3-03)situated in the revenue estate of village Kilokri, Tehsil Hauz Khas, Mehrauli, New Delhi is deemed to have been lapsed under Section 24(2)ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013.
In the present case, the suit/petitioner's land together with other parcels was notified for acquisition purposes in 1989. Later, a declaration under Section 6 was issued on-22.06.1990. The Award was published on 19.06.1992 and the Award recorded the names of
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
25.04.2017 In this petition, the relief claimed is the declaration that the acquisition ofland in question i.e., khasra no.500(3-03)situated in the revenue estate of village Kilokri, Tehsil Hauz Khas, Mehrauli, New Delhi is deemed to have been lapsed under Section 24(2)ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013.
In the present case, the suit/petitioner's land together with other parcels was notified for acquisition purposes in 1989. Later, a declaration under Section 6 was issued on-22.06.1990. The Award was published on 19.06.1992 and the Award recorded the names of
W.P.(C)9199/2015 Page 1 of2
2017:DHC:8172-DB claimants/land owners as Gian Chand, S/o Sunehri, Bharat Singh, S/o
Ram Pershad, Ved Ram,S/o Ram Pershad and Dhanoo Ram,S/o Ram
Pershad and determined the eompensation payable. The petitioners elaim to have purehased the land with sale deed registered in 1988.
They rely upon certain revenue records in the form ofkhasra girdaWari extracts.
The respondents pointed out that land owners were paid compensation and had accepted the same. They also poiiit out that possession oflands was taken on 12.07.1990. It is stated that in these circumstances, the elaim for release of lands or that acquisition has lapsed is not sustainable. The revenue records,in the form ofextract of khataoni/jamabandi do not show that the petitioners were owners, but only that they were in possession. Moreover, at the stage of Awai'd, the lands were notified and the original owners(predecessors in interest of the petitioners) had participated in the Award and accepted the compensation. In these circumstances,it is not open to the petitioner to contend that they were not tendered with the compensation in accordance with law - a pre-requisite in such cases for the reliefclaimed by them. It is not in dispute that the possession was taken over as far back as in 1990.
In the cu'cumstances,the petition is unmerited and is accordingly
S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J NA,J APRIL 25,2017/v//^fl5/
2017:DHC:8172-DB claimants/land owners as Gian Chand, S/o Sunehri, Bharat Singh, S/o
Ram Pershad, Ved Ram,S/o Ram Pershad and Dhanoo Ram,S/o Ram
Pershad and determined the eompensation payable. The petitioners elaim to have purehased the land with sale deed registered in 1988.
They rely upon certain revenue records in the form ofkhasra girdaWari extracts.
The respondents pointed out that land owners were paid compensation and had accepted the same. They also poiiit out that possession oflands was taken on 12.07.1990. It is stated that in these circumstances, the elaim for release of lands or that acquisition has lapsed is not sustainable. The revenue records,in the form ofextract of khataoni/jamabandi do not show that the petitioners were owners, but only that they were in possession. Moreover, at the stage of Awai'd, the lands were notified and the original owners(predecessors in interest of the petitioners) had participated in the Award and accepted the compensation. In these circumstances,it is not open to the petitioner to contend that they were not tendered with the compensation in accordance with law - a pre-requisite in such cases for the reliefclaimed by them. It is not in dispute that the possession was taken over as far back as in 1990.
In the cu'cumstances,the petition is unmerited and is accordingly
S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J NA,J APRIL 25,2017/v//^fl5/
W.P.(C)9199/2015 Page2of2
2017:DHC:8172-DB
2017:DHC:8172-DB
JUDGMENT