Full Judgment
$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: August 28, 2017 + W.P.(C) 4456/2015 KARTARI DEVI AND ORS. versus .....
... Petitioners Through: Mr. N.S. Checi, Advocate UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vivekanand Mishra and Mr. Rishabh Shahu, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel with Ms. Ridhi, Advocate for respondent-DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
(OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioner claims that neither possession of the subject land has been taken nor has any compensation been paid and, therefore, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) in respect of which Award No.21/1992-93 dated 18.06.1992 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra No.553/491/421 measuring 2 W.P. (C) 4456/2015 Page 1 of 4 bighas and 06 biswas in all in village-Jasola, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the possession of the subject land was taken on 19.01.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputes this position and maintains that the physical possession of the subject land is with the petitioner. In so far as the compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that no compensation has been paid. The Award has, as noted above, also been made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. However, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that this petition is not maintainable by the present petitioner in view of the fact that he is a subsequent purchaser. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is settled law that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and he is only entitled to seek compensation. They placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of KN Aswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr.LRs & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2014 SC279 A reference in this connection was also made to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Ors., (2008) 9 SCC177 3. It was also submitted by learned counsel for respondent that after possession of the land was handed over to the concerned agency i.e. Delhi Development Authority, for further dues. It was submitted that in these circumstances, this Court had by a previous order dated 22nd December, 2014 directed that the petitioner’s relief should be confined to a direction that she be granted possession in terms of the new Act. W.P. (C) 4456/2015 Page 2 of 4 4. This Court notices that the said order/judgment of the Court dated 22nd December, 2014 was subsequently reviewed by an order of 24th January, 2017 when the petition was restored for hearing after setting aside the said order.
5. The counter affidavit of respondent of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi i.e. Appropriate Government, states as follows: - “6. That the land in question i.e., Khasra No.426 min (2-12) and 432 min (5-10) ad-measuring 8 bighas and 2 biswas, situated at the revenue estate of village Jasola, New Delhi was notified under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act on 23.06.1989 followed by declaration under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act on 22.06.1990 for Planned Development of Delhi. In pursuance of said notification, notices under section 9 & 10 as provided under the Act, were issued to the interested persons, inviting the claims from all the interested persons and claims were also filed by the interested persons. The than Land Acquisition Collector passed Award No.21/92-93 dated 18.06.1992 after considering the claims of the claimants.
7. That in the present case possession of the land bearing Khasra No.426 min (2-12) and 432 min (5-10) was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department on 19.01.2006 and compensation with respect to khasra No.426 min (2-12) was paid to the recorded owners and for khasra No.432 min (5-10) was paid on 22.10.2014 to Sh. Rakesh Kumar & Ors. vide cheque nos. 354971 to 354978 on 22.10.2014.” 6. It is evident from the above pleadings that even though possession was taken on 19th January, 2006 that according to respondent, compensation was not paid within five years period contemplated under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in W.P. (C) 4456/2015 Page 3 of 4 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act').
7. In these circumstances, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and. Anr. v. Harak Chand Missinal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC183 A declaration to the effect that the suit lands i.e. Khasra Nos. 426 m (2-12) and 432 m (5-10) situated in revenue Estate of Village Jasola, NCT of Delhi are deemed to have lapsed, is therefore issued.
8. The writ petition is allowed. AUGUST28 2017 s S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) R.K. GAUBA (JUDGE) W.P. (C) 4456/2015 Page 4 of 4