Full Text
Judgement delivered on: 24th April, 2017 W.P.(C) No.10136/2015 & CM No.24951/2015
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Deepika V. Marwaha & Ms.Worthing Kasar, Advocates.
Through : Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms.Jyoti
Tyagi, Advocates for L&B/LAC.
Mr.M.K.Singh, Advocate for DDA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. Learned counsel for L&B/LAC seeks to tender the counter today in the Court. The same is hereby taken on record.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner through a constituted attorney namely Ashwani Kumar. The petitioner claims to be an owner of the agricultural land admeasuring 1 bigha 12 biswas falling in Khasra No.1082 min, situated in revenue estate of Village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, Delhi which he purchased vide registered sale deed dated 11.01.1994 executed by one 2017:DHC:2159-DB Keshav Kumar for self and as an attorney of one Smt.Vimi Sethi. The petitioner has been in possession of the subject land and on 21.04.1995 it was mutated in his name in the revenue records at Tehsil Vasant Vihar, Delhi. The copy of the Khatoni is filed.
3. On 27.06.1996, notification No.F.9(12)/95-L&B/LA/9743 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for acquisition of 1337 bigha and 04 biswas of land in village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, Delhi. Then a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. On 07.01.1999 an award bearing No.2/1998-99 was made by the respondent No.2 qua the land admeasuring 1333 bighas and 10 biswas of village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, Delhi, including the land of the petitioner.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that since after the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, a right has accrued in his favour since the respondents have neither taken the physical possession of his land nor have they paid any compensation, per award bearing No.2/1998-99.
5. It is also the case of the petitioner that on 05.10.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No.2051/2015 Arvind Kumar Sharma vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors challenging the award bearing No.2/1998-99 dated 07.01.1999 pertaining to the land comprising in Khasra No.1255/4 in village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, the notification qua the subject land was declared to have elapsed.
6. Respondent No.2 has filed the counter today and contents of para Nos.10 & 13 read as under:-
7. Hence, the respondents admit the possession of the land could not be taken because of a stay granted by this Court and that the compensation could not be paid since it was not received from the requisitioning authority.
8. In Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. V. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 wherein the Supreme Court held as under:- “under section 24(2) land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are deemed to have lapsed where award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of 2013 Act and possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not been paid. The legal fiction under section 24 (2) comes into operation as soon as conditions stated therein are satisfied, the applicability of section 6 of the General Clauses Act being subject to section 24 (2), there is no merit in the contention of the corporation (emphasis supplied)”
9. Now, the question whether the period during which the acquisition proceedings were stayed could be excluded from the period so stipulated under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is still pending before the Supreme Court in a larger Bench in Yogesh Neema vs. State of MP & Ors SLP (C) No.10742/2008 vide order dated 12.01.2016. However, in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2015) 3 SCC 353, the Supreme Court has held that if the possession could not be taken by the State for any reason including due to stay by court etc, the provisions of the Section 24(2) the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, would apply.
10. Since, admittedly the possession has not been taken over by the respondents and since the compensation has not been paid to the petitioner, so in view of the decision in Pune Municipal (supra) and the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for.
11. Consequently, a declaration is issued that the acquisition of the land of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid Khasra numbers has therefore lapsed in view of the above provisions. Consequently, the respondents are granted a year’s time to take appropriate suitable action failing which they shall ensure that possession is restored to the recorded owner.
12. Consequently, the petition and the pending miscellaneous application are allowed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
YOGESH KHANNA, J APRIL 24, 2017 M/RS