Jagdish Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners.The petitioners seek a declaration that the acquisition

proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra no.181 measuring 4 bigha 16 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village

Rajpur Khurd, Tehsil Hauz Khas, Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject land’) are deemed to have lapsed in view 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’), as neither the physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor the compensation has been tendered.

The necessary facts required to be noticed for the disposal of the present petition are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (here in after referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 25.11.1980, a Section 6 declaration was made on 18.06.1985.

Thereafter, an Award bearing no.22/1987-88 was rendered on 17.06.1987.

Admittedly, the petitioners had made an application in the name of the predecessor-in-interest for providing an alternate plot which was being

provided to the land owners, whose land had been acquired, however, the request of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that the land of the

petitioners had not been acquired. The counter affidavit filed by the LAC, however, has a different story to tell inasmuch as per the stand taken in

para 10 of the counter affidavit, physical possession of the subject land was taken on the spot on 15.07.1987 and compensation was tendered to the

recorded owners by cheque no.82599 dated 18.09.1987. Para 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC is reproduced below:

“10. That it is submitted that the physical possession of the subject land falling in khasra number 181 (4-16) was taken on the spot on 15.7.1987 and

handed over to the DDA as also the compensation was duly paid to the recorded owners vide cheque number 82599 dated 18.9.1987. Thus the

present writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.â€​

Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the LAC submits that having regard to the fact that the physical possession of the subject land was

taken and the compensation tendered, the provision of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 would not apply and resultantly, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that when the petitioners approached the Office of Land and Building for grant

of alternate plot, the application was rejected on the ground that the land had not been acquired, today an opposite stand is being taken that the

possession of the land has been taken and compensation paid. It is thus, submitted that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer on both counts.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the light of the stand taken by the LAC, the application seeking an alternate plot should be revived and the

request be considered in accordance with law.

We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners inasmuch as the application so filed was rejected, as stated by the counsel

for the petitioner on the ground that the land of the petitioners had not been acquired, and the petitioners would not be entitled to an alternate plot.

Admittedly, the possession of the subject land has been taken as per the counter affidavit filed by the LAC. Thus, the petitioners cannot be granted

any relief. However, we direct the Land and Building Department to consider the application filed by the petitioners in accordance with law. It is

made clear that the ground of delay will not come in the way of the petitioners in view of the pendency of this writ petition in this Court.

With these observations the writ petition stands disposed of.