Jasjeet Singh Makhija & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J

This common order will dispose of two proceedings i.e. W.P.(C) Nos.2920/2016 and 2995/2016.

Counsel for the respondent seeks to place on record the counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.2995/2016. The counter affidavit is taken on the record.

Relief claimed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2995/2016 (hereafter referred to as “Suman Chhabra’s petitionâ€) is for a declaration that

lands being Khasra Nos.654(4-16), 655(4-16), 656(4-16), 657(4-16), 658(4-16), 667(3-17), 670(4-16), 671(4-16), 672(4-16), 673/1(3-12), 673/2(1-04),

674(4-16), 675(2-17), 676(3-06), 677/1(1-04), 677/2(3-12), 678(1-19), 679(1-12), 680(4-16), 681/1(4-02), 695(4-16), 698(4-06) & 699(2-04) total

admeasuring to 72 bighas & 19 biswas, situated at the revenue estate of village Neb Sarai, New Delhi are free from acquisition. The relief claimed in

W.P.(C) No.2920/2016 (hereafter referred to as “Jasjeet Singh Makhija’s petition) is that lands being Khasra Nos.673/1 (min.) and 672 (min.)

â€" measuring 1415 sq. yds. situated in the revenue estate of Village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi are free from acquisition by virtue of

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In both cases,

lands were notified for acquisition on 05.11.1980 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter referred to as “the Actâ€). A declaration

under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 21.05.1985. After considering the submissions of the land owners and other persons interested, the award

was made by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) on 20.05.1987. The bona fide owners of the suit lands base their claim upon certain transfer

documents (General Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell) executed through the office of the Liquidator, pursuant to Court orders. The owner of

the suit lands was one M/s Laxmichand Bhagaji Limited, a non-banking financial company. That entity was subject to winding up proceedings

including one before the Bombay High Court (CP 50/1990) where one Official Liquidator was appointed. The petitioners in both these cases claim a

similar order made in respect of adjoining land, by this Court in Asha Jain & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.2987/2016) decided on

08.08.2017 and two other orders (Kanwal Jain & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.2988/2016) decided on 01.08.2017 and Ripple Kaur v.

Union of India & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.2921/2016) decided on 01.08.2017). In Asha Jain & Anr. (supra), an identical claim for relief that the lands were

free from acquisition was examined and the following findings were recorded:

“7. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the petitioners have no locus to seek declaration as the suit land was purchased by

them on the basis of General Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell. The submission is devoid of merits. It is admitted in the counter

affidavit that M/s.Laxmichand Bhagaji Limited was the recorded owner of the suit land and it was sold to the petitioners.

Record reveals that originally the land forming part of Khasra No. 675 was recorded in the name of M/s. Laxmichand Bhagaji Limited

â€" a non-banking company. Subsequently, several winding up petitions were filed against it in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay

including company petition No. 50/1990, where the official liquidator was appointed. Scheme of Arrangement or Compromise between the

company and its depositors was accepted, approved and sanctioned by the Bombay High Court vide its orders dated 24.10.1991 and

28.11.1991. In Company Application No. 298/2001 in Company Petition No. 76/1991, permission was sought to sell the entire land in

possession of the company. The Bombay High Court vide its order dated 10.08.2001 granted permission for the sale of the land after

receipt of full consideration. Suman Chabbra sole proprietor of M/s. Sukhshanti Associates purchased the suit land and Agreement to Sell

dated 02.01.2004 was executed in favour of M/s. Sukhshanti Associates. In terms of the said agreement, M/s. Sukhshanti Associate was

authorized to make payment of the consideration and the „committee‟ was to execute Agreement to Sell along with irrevocable General

Power of Attorney in favour of M/s. Sukhshanti Associates and / its nominee. The petitioners further averred that pursuant to the agreement

dated 02.01.2004, the committee executed a separate Agreement to Sell dated 09.05.2005 in favour of the petitioner - Asha Jain wherein

Suman Chhabra had made the confirming party. Along with the agreement dated 09.05.2005, General Power of Attorney was executed in

her favour and possession certificate was also issued qua the land measuring 93 sq.yds. in Khasra No.675 situated in the village Neb Sarai.

The petitioners further aver that the land forming part of Khasra No. 653 (min) was recorded in the name of Chandro Devi (1/3rd in 838

sq.yds.), S.B.Chaudhary (400 sq.yds.), Balwan Singh, Baljeet Singh and Kuldeep Singh (320 sq.yds. collectively). The said land measuring

800 sq.yds. was purchased by Suman Chhabra vide Agreement to Sell dated

06.2000, 07.03.2005 and 05.06.2005, respectively. The same has been transferred in favour of the petitioners vide registered General

Power of Attorney dated 09.05.2005 and Agreement to Sell in favour of the petitioner No.1 alongwith possession certificate. These facts

have not been controverted by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. Apparently, petitioners are the „persons interested‟ to claim

compensation which was never offered or tendered to them.

It is relevant to note that in similar circumstances in W.P.(C) 2988/2016 & 2921/2016, decided on 01.08.2017, similar relief was

granted to the petitioners therein.

As the respondents have not denied that the compensation of the suit lands has not been paid and its possession has not been taken, the

petitioners are entitled to the declaration sought. Accordingly, it is held that acquisition of suit land in Khasra No.653 and 675 admeasuring

800 sq.yds. and 93 sq.yds. respectively vide award No.12/87-88 dated 20.05.1987 is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the

Act.â€​

In the present writ petitions, the respondents, especially the appropriate Government have admitted that the possession of the suit lands were, in

fact, not taken over. In these circumstances, the relief that these two petitions claim are identical to the relief granted in the other decided cases i.e.

Asha Jain & Anr. (supra), Kanwal Jain & Anr. (supra) and Ripple Kaur (supra). A declaration is, therefore, issued that the suit lands i.e. Khasra

Nos.654(4-16), 655(4-16), 656(4-16), 657(4-16), 658(4-16), 667(3-17), 670(4-16), 671(4-16), 672(4-16), 673/1(3-12), 673/2(1-04), 674(4-16), 675(2-17),

676(3-06), 677/1(1-04), 677/2(3-12), 678(1-19), 679(1-12), 680(4-16), 681/1(4-02), 695(4-16), 698(4-06) & 699(2-04) total admeasuring to 72 bighas &

19 biswas, situated at the revenue estate of village Neb Sarai, New Delhi in Suman Chhabra’s petition and the suit lands i.e. Khasra Nos.673/1

(min.) and 672 (min.) â€" measuring 1415 sq. yds. situated in the revenue estate of Village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi in Jasjeet Singh

Makhija’s petition are free from acquisition and that the acquisition in respect of the aforesaid Khasra numbers in Suman Chhabra’s petition

and Jasjeet Singh Makhija’s petition are deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms.