Full Text
JUDGMENT
RAM PRAKASH MITTAL & ANR. ..... Petitioners
For the Petitioners : Mr B.K.Sood with Mr Manik Sood, Mr Shivan
Rawat and Mr Tejinder Singh.
For UOI : Dr Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj.
For LAC/L&B : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Mrs Kaomudi Kiran
Pathak, Mr Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr Kushal Raj.
For DUSIB : Mr Parvinder Chauhan with Mr Nitin Jain.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
1. The petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. A declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) in respect of which Award Nos. 18/2000-01 & 24/2005-06 dated 12.03.2001 2016:DHC:6808-DB & 03.02.2006, respectively, were made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners’ land, falling in Khasra Nos. 80 Min and 79 Min, measuring 4 bigha and 7 biswa in all in Village Bhalswa - Jahangirpur, Tehsil Model Town (North - West District), Delhi, be deemed to have lapsed.
2. The petitioners impugn the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents in respect of land owned by the petitioners being Khasra No.79 min (3-03) and Khasra No.80 min (1-04) in Village Bhalswa Jahangirpur, Delhi, pursuant to notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act dated 04.03.2003 & 04.02.2004 respectively.
3. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 have claimed that possession of the land acquired under Khasra No. 79 Min (6-06) and Khasra No. 80 Min (4-16), was taken on 26.04.2008 and 03.11.1999 respectively. This is, however, disputed by the petitioners, who claim to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.
4. In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that no compensation was paid to the petitioners in respect of the land acquired under Khasra No. 79 Min (6-06).
5. With respect to the land acquired under Khasra No. 80 Min (4-16), respondent nos. 2 to 4 have submitted that the said land was acquired vide notification dated 30.07.1998 issued under sections 4 and 17 of the 1894 Act followed by declaration under section 6 dated 04.08.1998, in an earlier acquisition proceeding. The Award was passed on 12.03.2001 and possession was taken on 03.11.1999. It was further submitted that Rs. 21,24,467.06/- plus TDS was paid to one Kishan Chand S/o Deep Chand on 27.02.2001, for land falling under Khasra No. 80 Min (2-08) and other Khasra Nos. at item no.3. For the remaining land acquired under Khasra No. 80 Min (2-08), compensation was paid to Sh. Chand S/o Kishan Lal at item no.4 of the Naksha Mumtzmin (as provided in the chart, showing status regarding possession taken/not taken and compensation paid/not paid, annexed along with the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4).
6. These facts have been refuted by the petitioners. It is submitted that the earlier acquisition proceedings of the year 1998, which pertained to the same area (929 Bighas and 15 Biswas, which include the subject Khasra Nos. 79 Min and 80 Min) of the same village Bhalswa - Jahangirpur, were challenged before this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4014, 4357, 4729, 4843 & 4893 of 1998, and the notifications therein were set aside vide judgment dated 31.05.2002 titled Praveen Jain & Others vs. Union of India & Others: 99 (2002) DLT 646 (DB); thus the subject land could not be said to have been acquired in the earlier acquisition proceedings. The petitioners have argued that the land under Khasra No. 80 was sought to be acquired in the fresh acquisition proceedings and therefore notification dated 04.03.2003 under section 4 of the 1894 Act, mentions the said land as that proposed to be acquired along with land falling in other Khasras. However, the declaration under section 6 dated 04.02.2004 does not mention the same, hence the land under Khasra No. 80 cannot be subject matter of the present acquisition proceedings also.
7. The petitioners have also submitted that the subject land [Khasra No. 79 Min (3-03) and Khasra No. 80 Min (01-04)] was purchased from the erstwhile owners vide a sale deed dated 04.03.1998 and the land was mutated in their favour way back on 28.05.1998. The petitioners have relied upon entries in the relevant revenue records, which reflect the names of the petitioners against the subject land, to show that they were the recorded bhumidars/owners prior to the commencement of the acquisition proceedings, and hence no compensation could have been paid to Sh. Kishan Chand S/o Deep Chand or to Sh. Chand S/o Kishan Lal and if it is claimed to have been paid, it would be of no consequence. This fact has not been controverted and therefore it is established that the petitioners are the recorded owners/bhumidars of the land in question, who have not been paid compensation.
8. Without going into the controversy with regard to the physical possession, this much is clear that the Awards were made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been paid to the petitioners, in as much as it has not been offered to the persons interested as observed by the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.
9. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases, stand satisfied:- (1) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183; (2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564; (3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; (4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and (5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors: WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
10. As a result the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the said acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
11. We make it clear that we have not examined any other aspect in this writ petition apart from what we have said above.
12. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 ab