Dayachand & Ors. Vs.union of India & Ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1207546
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnAug-01-2017
AppellantDayachand & Ors.
RespondentUnion of India & Ors.
Excerpt:
$~45 * + in the high court of delhi at new delhi decided on : august01 2017 w.p.(c) 8115/2014 & cm appl.18916/2014 dayachand & ors. ........ petitioners through : mr.brajesh kumar singh with mr.kumar qatta and mr.amit pratap shaunak, advocates. versus union of india & ors. ........ respondents through : mr.ajay digpaul, cgsc for uoi. ms.savita panda counsel for ms.mrinalini sen gupta, advocate, for dda. mr.yeeshu jain, standing counsel for lac. coram: hon'ble mr. justice s. ravindra bhat hon'ble mr. justice s.p.garg s. ravindra bhat, j.(open court) 1. the petitioners have prayed for the benefit of section 24(2) of the right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement act, 2013 (hereafter ‘2013 act’) i.e. a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of their w.p.(c)8115/2014 page 1 various lands at village phansali, north-west, delhi be deemed to have been lapsed since the pre-conditions spelled out in section 24(2) are fulfilled.2. the petitioners aver that they are the owners of the land in village phansali, north-west, delhi. a notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as ‘old act’) was issued on 21.3.2003 for public purpose, namely, ‘rohini residential scheme’ under planned development of delhi’. it included the suit land. a declaration under section 6 of the old act was issued on 19.03.2004. thereafter, notices were issued to the interested parties and on the basis of their submissions as well as relevant material, and award no.14/2005-06/dc (n-w) was published on 17.08.2005.3. in answer to the petitioner’s allegations with respect to neither compensation having being paid nor the petitioners having being dispossessed from the suit land, the respondent/govt of nct of delhi points out in its affidavit that the petitioners allegations are false because they clearly admit that compensation at the rate of `17,50,000/- per acre, i.e., 325 per square yard was received, which according to them was inadequately assessed and paid. the respondent submits that the possession of the land was also taken on record.4. the government of nct stand is not denied at large by the petitioner. in the rejoinder, however, it is contended that the form of structure – i.e. farmhouse was not assessed to compensation and consequently, the acquisition is not complete. certain observations in the award are relied upon for this purpose; the petitioner relies upon a w.p.(c)8115/2014 page 2 letter stated to have been issued by the municipal corporation of delhi some time in 1989 mentioning that the farmhouse was sanctioned.5. this court is of the opinion that the petitioners claim has failed in the present case. the petitioners admits that the possession of the entire land- which according to all the petitioners ought to have been acquired at a market value of `30,000/-per sq.yard was taken on record. it is not in dispute that almost the entire compensation was paid to them; the possession of the lands too were taken on record. in the circumstances, the factual controversy alleged in the opinion of the court with respect to a small portion of the land said to have contained a structure per se cannot result in the lapsing of the acquisition, particularly in view of the admissions in the writ petition.6. the petition fails and is therefore dismissed. all pending application(s) also stand disposed of. s. ravindra bhat (judge) s.p.garg (judge) august01 2017/sa w.p.(c)8115/2014 page 3
Judgment:

$~45 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON : AUGUST01 2017 W.P.(C) 8115/2014 & CM APPL.18916/2014 DAYACHAND & ORS. ........ Petitioner

s Through : Mr.Brajesh Kumar Singh with Mr.Kumar Qatta and Mr.Amit Pratap Shaunak, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS

Through : Mr.Ajay Digpaul, CGSC for UOI. Ms.Savita Panda counsel for Ms.Mrinalini Sen Gupta, Advocate, for DDA. Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for LAC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

(OPEN COURT) 1. The petitioners have prayed for the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter ‘2013 Act’) i.e. a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of their W.P.(C)8115/2014 Page 1 various lands at village Phansali, North-West, Delhi be deemed to have been lapsed since the pre-conditions spelled out in Section 24(2) are fulfilled.

2. The petitioners aver that they are the owners of the land in village Phansali, North-West, Delhi. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as ‘old Act’) was issued on 21.3.2003 for Public Purpose, namely, ‘Rohini Residential Scheme’ under Planned Development of Delhi’. It included the suit land. A declaration under Section 6 of the Old Act was issued on 19.03.2004. Thereafter, notices were issued to the interested parties and on the basis of their submissions as well as relevant material, and Award No.14/2005-06/DC (N-W) was published on 17.08.2005.

3. In answer to the petitioner’s allegations with respect to neither compensation having being paid nor the petitioners having being dispossessed from the suit land, the respondent/Govt of NCT of Delhi points out in its affidavit that the petitioners allegations are false because they clearly admit that compensation at the rate of `17,50,000/- per acre, i.e., 325 per square yard was received, which according to them was inadequately assessed and paid. The respondent submits that the possession of the land was also taken on record.

4. The Government of NCT stand is not denied at large by the petitioner. In the rejoinder, however, it is contended that the form of structure – i.e. farmhouse was not assessed to compensation and consequently, the acquisition is not complete. Certain observations in the award are relied upon for this purpose; the petitioner relies upon a W.P.(C)8115/2014 Page 2 letter stated to have been issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi some time in 1989 mentioning that the farmhouse was sanctioned.

5. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioners claim has failed in the present case. The petitioners admits that the possession of the entire land- which according to all the petitioners ought to have been acquired at a market value of `30,000/-per sq.yard was taken on record. It is not in dispute that almost the entire compensation was paid to them; the possession of the lands too were taken on record. In the circumstances, the factual controversy alleged in the opinion of the Court with respect to a small portion of the land said to have contained a structure per se cannot result in the lapsing of the acquisition, particularly in view of the admissions in the writ petition.

6. The petition fails and is therefore dismissed. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) S.P.GARG (JUDGE) AUGUST01 2017/sa W.P.(C)8115/2014 Page 3