- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 15 March 2018
- Bench
- G.S.Sisjani, Sanglt^ Dhingra Sehgal
- Case no.
- W.P.(C) 73/2017
Judgment
G.S.SISTANI, J. " SANGITA DI|;^ieRAS|ljG^L, J. \ MARCH 15, 2018/gr * } " > ' V.-" p 1* « . i' ♦ • ■ \ • ' i f \ \ n ■ 'r. '■i-I.' v;. ,v. , ...; .'■Ll - I ..V i ■f = - ■Tv •y
Case details
Parties and counsel
$-43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgement: 15'^ March, 2018 W.P.(C) 73/2017 & C.M.No.439/2017 DAMINI WADHWA Through: + ....Petitioner Mr. N.S. Vasisht and Ms. Jyoti Kataria Bajaj, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Through: Respondents Ms. Aastha Tyagi, Mr. Dinesh Chander Trehan Advocates for L&B/LAC. Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. For DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISJANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGlt^ DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S. SISTANI. J. (Oral) Pleadings are complete. AcCordiriglyrthe present writ petition is set down for final hearing dhd disposal.,. :/•' This is a petition under,Artidlei226 pTCphstitution of India filed by 1. 2. the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to Property No.92/101/114 comprised in . 4 ' - ^ • "1 ' Khasra No. 627, measuring/l-SSS'-sq.ydS.^^^^^^ situated in the revenue estate of village Maidan Garhi, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'subject land') stand 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 '2013 Act') as neither the actual physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation in respect thereof has been paid. ^ V Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. J. 3. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 25.11.1980 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on 18.06.1985. Thereafter, an award bearing no.23/87-88 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 17.06.1987. Mr. N.S. Vasisht, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the physical possession of the land has not been taken, and the compensation in respect thereof has not been paid, 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 Couft' in;Gov/, of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and aridther,^xt^orXQd in 2017 (6) SCC 751, in 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' k placed on para 28 of this judgment which reads,as under: 4. "28. Thus, the subsequent purch^ the assignee, the successor in interest, the power-of-attorney holder, etc., are all persons who are interested in compensation/lqndowners/ affected ]persons in terms of the 2013 Act and sudh 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. " 5. On the other hand, Ms. Aastha Tyagi learned counsel for the LAC submits that physical possession of the subject land has been taken and compensation has been tendered to the recorded owners. She further submits that it is not open for the petitioner to dispute the possession for the reason that the petitioner has purchased the subject land from Mrs. Manisha Singh vide Agreement to Sell dated 06.09.2006 i.e. post passing of the Award, and the possession was taken from the recorded owners/to'whom compensation was ' ^ also paid. Relevant Para(s) of the. counter affidavit filed by LAC "8. That in thepresm cdsfiy^hpf^pession of thefand in question waktake^oven^nd^Jianded over to %e beneficiary depS^0;^^^7.1987 and afper Statement "A " compensdtioiVwas paid to the recorded """'ilillf Name SI No. Remarks ManshnX] \Paid vide Ch. ?No.82537 dt. 14.09.87 Amar Singh 916988.71 Paid as below: ; 318/1 Dharamveer 222355.19 yPaid dt.30.09.87 Jas^e4t^i ^2i2235MSl '^Baid dt. 30.09.8
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.