Phool Singh & Ors v. UOI & Ors

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J MAY 20, 2013 /vks/

Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % RESERVED ON: 09.05.2013 PRONOUNCED ON: 20.05.2013 + CM APPL.1900/2005 PHOOL SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumit Rajput, Ms. Ruchi Jain and Ms. Manisha Gupta, Advocates. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran Pathak, Advocates for Resp-2-4. Ms. Bandana Shukla, proxy for Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate. Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Advocate for Resp-6. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel/North DMC with Mr. Hem Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT 1. In the present appeal, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of 23.08.2004 rendered in review proceedings (R.P. No.147/2004) in a decided case, i.e., W.P. (C) 2489/2001 has been challenged. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellants had approached this Court Page 2 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - by filing W.P. (C) No.2489/2001, alleging that they were owners of a large tracts of land: 332 Bighas, 7 Biswas in Khasra no.754/21 and 1 Biswa in Khasra No.801/50/1 at village Khampur Raya, New Delhi. They had alleged that the said lands had been originally notified for acquisition vide Notification dated 13.11.1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and later subject matter of a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act, dated 8.12.1966. It was alleged that the Award in respect of these lands were never made and that after the enactment - as well as coming into force of the amendments to the Land Acquisition Act in 1984, two year period had been mandated within which the Award could be validly made. The petitioners contended that the two year period ended on 23.09.1986 despite which the acquiring authority, i.e., the erstwhile Delhi Administration which is now succeeded to by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi did not draw the Award. Complaining that their lands had, in the meanwhile, been taken over without authority of law, the petitioners sought appropriate relief including a direction to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi to issue a Notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of their land. 3. The petitioners had in the course of their submissions relied upon the judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) 2920/1995, made on 12.12.1997 and stated that similar or identical directions ought to be given. 4. The claim in the petition was resisted. After considering the circumstances and submissions of the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition by judgment dated 3.12.2001 in terms of the following directions: - Page 3 "In view of the submissions made above, I dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to take appropriate steps for acquisition of the land in question under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by issuing a formal notification under section 4 of the Act within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writ order from the ;court. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that since the respondent-MCD has already utilized the land for public purpose, inquiry under section 5-A of the Act is dispensed with. Since inquiry under section 5-A has been disposed with; within a period of one year from the date of notification under section 4, the collector, Land Acquisition will make his ward under the provision of the Act and within one month thereafter the amount of compensation becoming due and payable, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, will be paid to the petitioners inclusive of solatium and interest. In case the Petitioners would feel aggrieved as regards the amount of compensation, it will be open to them to seek reference in accordance with law. Since the Land was acquired for the benefit of respondents 5 to 7 and they are in possession of the same, compensation will be paid either by respondents 2 to 4 or respondents 5 to 7, a