AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J
C.M No. 3371/2016(Condonation of delay)
This is an application filed by the DDA seeking condonation of delay of 115 days in filing the counter affidavit. There is no opposition to the prayer
made in this application. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Delay of 115 days is hereby condoned. Counter affidavit filed by DDA is taken on
record.
W.P(C) 3903/2015
With the consent of the parties, the present Writ Petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.
This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking quashing and setting aside of the Notification issued under
Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 being No. F11(19)/2001/L&B/LA/20112 dated 21.03.2003, setting aside of the declaration issued under
Section 6 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 being No.F11(15)/2004/L&B/LA/28227 dated 19.3.2004 and the Award No. 06/2005-06/DC(N-W) dated
27.06.2005/12.7.2005. The petitioner further seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioner comprised in
Khasra No.39/7,8, 13, admeasuring 500 square yards, situated in the revenue estate of village Lado Sarai, Tehsil- Hauz Khas, Mehrauli, New Delhi
(hereinafter referred as the 'subject land') stand lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as '2013 Act') as neither the physical possession has been taken nor the
compensation has been paid to the petitioner.
In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 21.03.2003 and a
declaration under Section 6 was made on 19.03.2004. Thereafter, an Award bearing no. 06/2005-06/DC (N-W) was passed on 12.07.2005 with
respect to the subject land.
Mr. Akhil Sachar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not made a written prayer in his petition seeking benefit of lapse of
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Act (hereinafter referred to as 2013 Act) but relevant averments have been made in this regard before this court and in the writ petition. The counsel
submits that as neither the physical possession of the subject land was taken nor the compensation in that regard was paid by the respondents, the
petitioner would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. Learned counsel further relies on the decision rendered by the
Supreme Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and another, reported in 2017 (6) SCC 751 i,n response to the stand taken by
LAC in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as he is not the recorded owner. Reliance is placed on
para 28 of this judgment which reads as under:-
“28. Thus, the subsequent purchaser, the assignee, the successor in interest, the power-of-attorney holder, etc., are all persons who are
interested in compensation/landowners/ affected persons in terms of the 2013 Act and such persons are entitled to file a case for a
declaration that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is a declaration
qua the land wherein indisputably they have an interest and they are affected by such acquisition. For such a declaration, it cannot be said
that the respondent-writ petitioners do not have any locus standi.â€
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned Counsel for LAC raised an objection about the locus standi of the present petitioner on the ground that the present petition
has been filed by the petitioner being a GPA holder of the subject property and not as a recorded owner of the subject property. He further submits
that neither the possession of the subject land has been taken over from the land owners nor the compensation with regard to the subject land was
paid to the interested persons. Para 6 of the Counter affidavit filed by the LAC, reads as under :-
That it is submitted that the lands of village Prehlad Pur Bangar were notified vide Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
dated 21.3.2003 which was followed by the Notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 19.3.2004. The Award was also passed vide Awards No.
6/2005-06 dated 12.7.2005 however neither the possession could not be taken nor the compensation be paid for the subject land falling in above-said
khasra numbers.â€
Further, the Counter affidavit has also been filed by the DDA and relevant portion of which reads as under :-
f) Notwithstanding all of the above, in the alternate, I say that provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 do not apply to the land in
question; as per the land records available with DDA, the land of Kh. 39/7(4-16), 8(4-15) & 13(1-14) village Prahlad Pur Bangar notified
u/s 4 of the LA Act vide No. F11 (19)/2001/L&B/LA/ dated 21.03.2003, Declaration u/s 6 vide No. F11 (15)/2004/L&B/LA dated 19.03.2004
and acquired vide award No. 06/2005-06. The physical possession of the land of these Khasra Nos. of the Petition has not been handed
over to DDA by LAC L&B Deptt. GNCTD due to existence of residential houses, factories, and Kotha Jat as per possession proceeding
dated 26.08.2005. And that, DDA has remitted compensation to L&B Deptt through cheque No. 074064 dated 09.08.05 amounting to Rs.
80,40,76,004/- in respect of land acquired vide award No. 06/05-06. In any case, the Act cannot have retrospective application, even if it
applies according to the understanding applied by the Petitioners herein.â€
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation has been
paid to the petitioner. Counsel has also submitted that the objections of the LAC regarding locus standi of the petitioner is misplaced in view of the
observations made by the Supreme Court in Manav Dharma Trust (supra) where the rights of the subsequent purchaser have been recognised.
We are of the considered view that the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra) apply to the facts of the
present case for the reason that in this case the possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid to the recorded owner. In this
case as the physical possession has not been taken and compensation having not been paid at all, in those circumstances, the decision rendered in the
case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra) would come to the aid and rescue of the petitioner and thus the submissions made by LAC in the counter
affidavit that the petitioner is not a recorded owner but a GPA holder and therefore cannot claim release of the subject land is highly belated and
misplaced.
Having regard to the submissions made and the categorical assertion made in the counter affidavit filed by LAC, that neither the possession of the
land comprised in Khasra No. 39/7/8/13 admeasuring 500 square yards has been taken over nor the compensation in respect thereof has been paid to
the petitioner and since, the award having been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the petitioner is entitled
to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to the subject land are deemed to have
lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.
However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the title of the subject land. The question of title of the subject land is left
open to be decided in the appropriate court of jurisdiction.
The writ petition is disposed of.
C.M. APPL. 6971/15(Stay)
The application stands disposed of in view of order passed in the writ petition.