Ishwar Singh & Ors. Vs.union of India & Ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1206831
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnJul-11-2017
AppellantIshwar Singh & Ors.
RespondentUnion of India & Ors.
Excerpt:
$~47 * + in the high court of delhi at new delhi decided on :11. h july , 2017 w.p.(c) 9324/2015 ishwar singh & ors. through : ms.richa oberoi, advocate. ........ petitioners versus ........ respondents union of india & ors. through : mr.vijay joshi, sr.penal counsel for uoi. mr.yeeshu jain, standing counsel for l& b / lac with mr.siddharth panda, advocate. mr.sanjeev sabharwal, standing counsel for dda. coram: hon'ble mr. justice s. ravindra bhat hon'ble mr. justice s.p.garg s.p.garg, j.(open court) cm appl. 23744/2017 1. issue notice. mr.vijay joshi, sr.penal counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1; mr.yeeshu jain, standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2 and mr.sanjeev sabharwal, standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.3.2. for the reasons detailed and in the interest of justice, the application is allowed. w.p.(c) 9324/2015 w.p.(c) 9324/2015 page 1 of 3 1. with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing today itself.2. in the instant writ petition, the petitioners claim themselves to be legal representatives of the recorded owners of the lands forming part of khasra no.716/250 min (7-13) situated in the revenue estate of village jasola, new delhi. the petitioners’ claim is that acquisition of their lands (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’) has lapsed by virtue of section 24(2) of right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act’).3. the brief facts are that a notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (old act) was issued on 06.04.1964; it included the suit land. a declaration was issued under section 6 of the old act on 07.12.1966. the award bearing no.6d/supplementary/86- 87 dated 19.09.1986 was made by the land acquisition collector.4. the petitioners aver that despite acquisition, they continued to be in physical possession of the suit land till date. they have not been paid or tendered any compensation so far. relying upon ‘pune municipal corporation & anr. vs. harakchand misirimal solanki & ors.’, 2014 (3) scc183 counsel urged that the acquisition has lapsed since five year period indicated in section 24(2) of the act has ended.5. the govt. of nct of delhi through lac, in its counter- affidavit, significantly makes the following admission : “that in the present case, possession of the above said land was not taken over. however, as per the records compensation was sent to rd.” w.p.(c) 9324/2015 page 2 of 3 6. it is evident that the possession of land in khasra no.716/250 min (7-13) has not been taken so far. the counter-affidavit does not reveal if any compensation for acquisition of the land in khasra no.716/250 min (7-13) was paid to the recorded owners.7. the supreme court in pune municipal corporation case (supra) dealt with the issue, i.e. as to whether compensation amount has to be actually paid, or deposited. that decision clarified that mere deposit of the amount in the treasury would not fulfill requirement of section 24(2) and that there should be a positive step to appropriate the concerned amount and make it available to the land owner, i.e. by way of payment under section 31(2) of the old act, or by deposit of the compensation in court.8. as the respondents have not denied that the possession of the land in khasra no.716/250 min (7-13) has not taken over, in the present case, the petitioners are entitled to the declaration sought to that extent. accordingly, it is held that acquisition of suit land in khasra no.716/250 min (7-13) vide award no.6d/supplementary/86- 87 dated 19.09.1986 is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of section 24(2) of the act.9. the writ petition is allowed in the above terms. s.p.garg (judge) july11 2017 / tr s. ravindra bhat (judge) w.p.(c) 9324/2015 page 3 of 3
Judgment:

$~47 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON :

11. h JULY , 2017 W.P.(C) 9324/2015 ISHWAR SINGH & ORS. Through : Ms.Richa Oberoi, Advocate. ........ Petitioner

s Versus ........ RESPONDENTS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through : Mr.Vijay Joshi, Sr.Penal Counsel for UOI. Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for L& B / LAC with Mr.Siddharth Panda, Advocate. Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.

(OPEN COURT) CM APPL. 23744/2017 1. Issue notice. Mr.Vijay Joshi, Sr.Penal Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1; Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 and Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3.

2. For the reasons detailed and in the interest of justice, the application is allowed. W.P.(C) 9324/2015 W.P.(C) 9324/2015 Page 1 of 3 1. With the consent of the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing today itself.

2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners claim themselves to be legal representatives of the recorded owners of the lands forming part of Khasra No.716/250 MIN (7-13) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Jasola, New Delhi. The petitioners’ claim is that acquisition of their lands (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’) has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’).

3. The brief facts are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old Act) was issued on 06.04.1964; it included the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 of the old Act on 07.12.1966. The award bearing No.6D/Supplementary/86- 87 dated 19.09.1986 was made by the Land Acquisition Collector.

4. The petitioners aver that despite acquisition, they continued to be in physical possession of the suit land till date. They have not been paid or tendered any compensation so far. Relying upon ‘Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors.’, 2014 (3) SCC183 counsel urged that the acquisition has lapsed since five year period indicated in Section 24(2) of the Act has ended.

5. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi through LAC, in its counter- affidavit, significantly makes the following admission : “That in the present case, possession of the above said land was not taken over. However, as per the records compensation was sent to RD.” W.P.(C) 9324/2015 Page 2 of 3 6. It is evident that the possession of land in Khasra No.716/250 MIN (7-13) has not been taken so far. The counter-affidavit does not reveal if any compensation for acquisition of the land in Khasra No.716/250 MIN (7-13) was paid to the recorded owners.

7. The Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation case (supra) dealt with the issue, i.e. as to whether compensation amount has to be actually paid, or deposited. That decision clarified that mere deposit of the amount in the Treasury would not fulfill requirement of Section 24(2) and that there should be a positive step to appropriate the concerned amount and make it available to the land owner, i.e. by way of payment under Section 31(2) of the old Act, or by deposit of the compensation in Court.

8. As the respondents have not denied that the possession of the land in Khasra No.716/250 MIN (7-13) has not taken over, in the present case, the petitioners are entitled to the declaration sought to that extent. Accordingly, it is held that acquisition of suit land in Khasra No.716/250 MIN (7-13) vide award No.6D/Supplementary/86- 87 dated 19.09.1986 is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act.

9. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. S.P.GARG (JUDGE) JULY11 2017 / tr S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) W.P.(C) 9324/2015 Page 3 of 3