W.P.(C)/2406/2015 of KALU RAM Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 2406/2015 & CM No.23412/2015

KALU RAM

..... Petitioner

Through Mr.Mahmood Hasan, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

Through

..... Respondents

Mr.Prakash Yadav, Sr. Panel counsel with Mr.Gaurav Yadav, Adv. for R-1. Mr.Yeshu Jain, standing counsel with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advs. for LAC. with Mr.Gaurav Yadav, Adv. for R-1. Mr.Yeshu Jain, standing counsel with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advs. for LAC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

16.05.2017

1. The petitioner seeks declaration that the acquisition of the land to the extent of 1 bigha 7 biswas, (in Khasra no.32 of Review Estate Khichripur, now known as East Vinod Nagar) is deemed to have been lapsed.

2. The facts are that the respondent/appropriate Govt. notified several

lands and extent of land for acquisition on 13.11.1959. The letter of declaration under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was issued. This proceeding culminated with the award 30A-70-71 (supplementary) dated 14.03.1977. The petitioners contend that though they were dispossessed of the major part of the land, possession in respect of 1 bigha 7 biswas (out of khasra no.32) was not taken over.

W.P.(C) 2406/2015

3. The respondents do not dispute the petitioner’s argument and in fact concede that the extent of 1 bigha 7 biswas notified of land was not taken over. It is stated as follows:-

“4. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioners have misguided the Hon'ble Court by stating that the physical possession of the subject land falling in subject khasra number were not taken by the Government nor the compensation has been paid. It is submitted that the petitioners have been claiming the relief of (1-07) falling in khasra number 32 in village Khichripur, Delhi. It is submitted that the answering respondent has not taken the physical possession of(1-07) out of the total land measuring (13-04) falling in the said khasra whereas the actual vacant physical possession of land measuring (11-17) out of the said khasra number was duly taken on the spot on 5.4.1977 and handed over to the requisition agency on the spot by preparing possession proceeding on the spot. It is further submitted that since the deceased Kalu Ram i.e the father of the petitioners herein was not only the recorded owner of the subject land but there were other various persons recorded as recorded owners in the revenue records, thus having the dispute of apportionment, the compensation was sent to the Court of ADJ on 8.3.1979.

5. That it is submitted that for the purpose of planned development of Delhi, the answering respondent issued Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 13.11.1959 for the acquisition of the in the khasra numbers under reference in village Khichripur. That an Award bearing No. 30-A/70- 71 (Supplementary) dated 14.3.1977 was also passed and the actual vacant physical part possession of the subject land was also taken vide possession proceedings dated 5.4.1977, stated supra.

6. That the Supreme Court of India in the recent judgment titled as K. N Aswathnarayana Setty Vs State of Karnatka reported as AIR SC 279 has held that once the possession of the land is being taken, the persons interested are entitled to compensation only.”

4. In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the requirement of Section 24(2) of the Act has been fulfilled inasmuch as the possession of the entire area notified for acquisition was not taken over by the respondent- appropriate Government. Consequently, the acquisition of the suit land to the extent of 1bigha 7 biswas fall in khasra no.32 of Review Estate Khichripur, now known as East Vinod Nagar, Delhi is deemed to have been lapsed. At the same time, the Court hereby records that the respondents stated position is that compensation for the entire land was in fact deposited with the concerned Court. However, consequences mandate under section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 Act and declaration to that order issued does not preclude the respondents from initiating fresh proceedings under law.

The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

MAY 16, 2017/vp

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

W.P.(C) 2406/2015