Vikrant v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors

X- •. . S vv. jG $-51 , \-: - * IN THE jaiGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI , • ' Date of Judgment: lO'^ October, 2018 + ,W.P.(C).26/2.0.18 VKRANT . .Petitioner . , . Tlirough; Mr. Sunil K Goel, Advocate. ' . ,' Versus GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI AND ORS , .....Respondents Through: " Mr. Karanjot Singh Maiilee fpr Ruchika Rathij' Advocates for Goyt of NOT of n n Mr-Vdeshii Jairi .Standing Counsel with Ms. jydti .. Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B. . Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MRv JUSTICE G^ SiSTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE feANOif A .DpiNGRA SEHGAL G.S. SISTANL J. (Oral)

¶1. This is a petition under Ai*l:icic,226 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to (00-10) 1/144'"^ share of the land comprised in Khasra No. 89/3/1 (07-16) and 89/3/2 (64-05), admeasuring 72 Bighas 01 Biswa, situated in the revenue estate of village Ghonda Gujran Kliadar, Shahdra, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'subject land')^ is deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Tivinsparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as '2013 Act') as neither the actual physical possession of the W.R(C) 26/2018 o subject land has been taken nor the compensation in respect thereof has been paid to the petitioner.

¶2In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on

23.06.1989 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on

20.06.1990. Thereafter, an Award bearing no. 8/1992-93-was passed on 19.06.1992. ar-

¶3Ml'. Sunil K Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the actual physical possession of the subject land has not been taken and compensation in respect thereof has not been paid, thus the petitioner would be entitled, to-a declaration under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. He further stibmits that his submission is further fortified by the stand taken by the LAC in tiie counter affidavit. Learned counsel .further relies on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and anotherf 2017 (6) SCC 751, in I response to the stand taken by LAC in the counter affidavit that the

(3) petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as he is not the recorded owner. Reliance is placedrqii 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/affectedpersons in terms of the compensation 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 Page 2iof 6 • 1 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 stcindi. "

¶4Mr. Yeeshii Jain, learned counsel for the LAC the, raised an objection that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was not the reCiOrded owner of the subject land ;aha the Gaon Sabha was shown as the recorded owner in the revenue records, hence the petitioner has no right on the subject land. In support of his submissions, counsel for LAC relies on paragraph 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under ,"5. That the present writ-petition is liable to be dismissed as the .predece^or-in^interest of the petitioner were not the recorded owrier of. the subject land but the Gaon Sahha was shown'as the recorded owner of the subject land falling in khasra number 89/3/1 and 89/3/2, village Ghonda Gujran Khadar. \ The writ petition, is dlsoffiqble to be dismissed as the y, petitioners have not 'pldeed on.mecord any document which allegedly asserted their alleged rights as 1/144"^ in the subject land. No Surviving Membership Certificate has been filed along-with the. writ petition." "6. That it is submitted that for purposes of planned development of Delhi, the answering respondent issued a Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 23.6.1989 which was followed by Notification u/s 6 of the said Act dated 20.6.1990 for planned development of Delhi for the acquisition of the lands falling in village Ghonda Gujran Khadar. That an Award No. 8/92-93 dated 19.6.1992 was also passed and the actual vacant physical possession of the subject lands falling in khasra number 89/3/1 (7-16) and 89/3/2 (64-05) was taken on the spot by preparing possession proceedings dated 21.3.2007 and handed over to the DDA on the spot whereas the compensation was assessed in the name of Gaon Sabha as the recorded owner of the subject land was shown to be Gaon Sabha. "

¶5The counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No.3/Delhi Development Authority and the relevant portion is reproduced hereinafter:- ''(7cj ... The physical possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 89/3/1 (7-16) and 89/3/2 (61-05), village Ghonda Gujran Khaddr, Shghdfa Delhi was handed over to the DDA by the LA&L&B Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 21. 03.2007 and the land was further transferred to J.E./SDV/ED-2 on 19.9.2007. it is further submitted that the amount of compensation for the. Award to the tune of Rs. 4,10,04,583/- (Rupees, Four Crore Ten Lakh Four T/housand Five Hundred Eighty Three onl^^fm fdid:yfie Cheque No. 088808 dated 28.2.200Z to the Kqhd % B^^ Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Copy' of the possession proceedings are ahhe'xed' as'ANNEXURE-1. Copy of Naksha Muntjamin showing the land as Gam Sabha is annexed as ANNEXURE-2. As such the petitioner was not entitled to receive any compensation. "

¶6We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

¶7The 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 T fo Supreme Court in Manav Dharma Trust (supra) where the rights of the predecessor-in-interest/subsequent purchaser have been recognized. 8; As far as the objection with regard to maintainability is concerned, we find the same to be misplaced in vieW of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra). We are of the considered view that, the submissions made by the counsel for the LAC that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was not the recofded owner of the subject land, holds no ground.

¶9In relation to the objection raised by the counsel for the LAC with regard to the land being vested ih the>Gaon Sabha is concerned, we deem it appropriate to follow a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this court in the case; ofdSanjeev Solanki Vs. Delhi Development Authority and 1999/2015, dQcidQd on

24.01.2017, paragraph' 5; of which reads as unden- "5. While we have declared that the subject acquisition has. lapsed, it is made clear that this would not amount to giving title to the petitioner or perfecting the petitioner's title inasmuch as Mr. Jain has taken the plea in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 that the Gaon Sabha has been shown as the recorded owner. This fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But, we are not entering into the controversy of title which may be sorted out elsewhere. Insofar as the acquisition is concerned, the same has lapsed because neither physical possession was taken over nor compensation was paid." W.R(C) 26/2018

¶10As per the counter affidavit filed by LAC, the possession of the subject land has been taken on the spot by preparing possession proceedings on 21.3.2007 and the compensation of the subject land has not been tendered to the petitioner as being assessed in the name of Gaon Sabha.

¶11Having regard to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed bf'LAC that the compensation has not been paid in respect of the. subject land and since the award has been announced more than r/ five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the. petitioner is entitled to a declar^ibn' Uhder Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act with legaid to the subject land are deemed to have been lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.

¶12However, 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.

¶13The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. -r. G.S,.SISTANI, J. OCTOBER 10, 2018 // SANGIT/PfHlNG^ SEHGAL, J