Parmod Singh v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks 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’).

2. This case has a long drawn history inasmuch as initially the petition was filed on 27.06.2001 challenging the acquisition proceedings 2016:DHC:5568 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Section 4 notification was issued on 15.09.2000 which was followed by the Section 6 declaration under the 1894 Act on 17.04.2001. The emergency provisions of Section 17 of the 1894 Act had also been invoked.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that possession of the subject land which are comprising of Khasra No.352 (4-16) in Village Bhalswa Jahangirpur, Delhi is with the petitioner. At this juncture itself, we may point out that in terms of the notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act the extent of the land in question was indicated as 4 bighas 16 biswas, however, the Section 6 declaration was only in respect of 4 bighas. This, therefore, means that there was no surviving acquisition proceeding in respect of 16 biswas and the present writ petition pertains only to the remaining 4 bighas of land.

4. After the alleged possession was taken on 26.02.2001, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 27.06.2001 and in which a status quo order was passed on 13.07.2001. It is continued till date. One more fact is necessary and that is that the present petitioner had purchased the subject land by virtue of a registered sale deed which was executed on 20.05.1999, (i.e., prior to the issuance of Section 4 notification under the 1894 Act). The petitioner had purchased this land from the earlier owners namely Bhoop Singh and Mahender Singh.

5. Therefore the situation with regard to possession is that on the one hand, the respondents claim that the possession of the said 4 bighas of land was taken on 22.06.2001, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said possession was only paper possession and did not amount to taking over of physical possession which, according to the petitioner, is still with the petitioner. This implies that at best we can say that possession in respect of the said land is disputed.

6. As regards compensation, it is an admitted position that compensation in respect of the said land was paid by the respondent/Land Acquisition Collector but not to the petitioner (Parmod Singh). It was paid to Bhoop Singh and Mahender Singh in two tranches; firstly 80% was tendered and paid at the time of taking over of the possession, this being a case under Section 17 of 1894 Act. Secondly, the balance 20% was paid after making of the Award No.06/2002-2003 dated 12.04.2002.

7. The petitioner has claimed the benefit of section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act on the ground that the award was made more than five years prior to the coming into force of the 2013 Act (which came into force on 01.01.2014). It is also contended that compensation has not been paid to the petitioner who was the legitimate owner of the subject land. It is contended that while the respondents may have paid the compensation amount to Bhoop Singh and Mahender Singh, that would not amount to payment of compensation to the owner as the title had already changed hands and Parmod Singh (the petitioner herein) was the owner on the date on which the Section 4 notification was issued. It is also clear that the compensation was paid to Bhoop Singh and Mahender Singh by the respondents/Land Acquisition Collector because the land records had not been corrected and the payment was made mistakenly. We are also informed that recovery had been initiated by the respondents from Bhoop Singh and Mahender Singh as far back as on 2004. Mr. Pathak appearing on behalf of the LAC submits that the records do not indicate as to what happened thereafter.

8. In view of the foregoing, the factual position that emerges is that the possession in respect of the subject land is said to be disputed. The compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and the award has also been made prior to 01.01.2014. Consequently, all the ingredients of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and by this Court in the following decisions stand satisfied:-

(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v.

(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v.

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.:

9. The petitioner would be entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceeding has lapsed in terms of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. It is so declared.

10. Before parting with this case, we may also point out that Mr Pathak had raised the issue of there being a stay order which had prevented further course of action on the part of the Land Acquisition Collector and that should not be to the detriment of the respondents/LAC. However this point is no longer available to Mr Pathak in view of our decision in Jagjit Singh vs Union of India: (2014) 211 DLT 15.

11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed as aforesaid. We are making it clear that the decision in this matter shall not in any manner prejudice the case of the Land Acquisition Collector in his pursuit of recovery of the amounts wrongly paid to Bhoop Singh and Mahender Singh in accordance with law.