RAJINDER SINGH & ANR vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 16.04.2024
+ W.P.(C) 1460/2016
RAJINDER SINGH & ANR ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr S.K. Rout, Mr Aman Mehrotra, Mr Ganesh Singh, Mr Rahul Kumar, Mr Rahul Chauhan, Ms Shruti Rathore and Mr Saranjeet Singh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ….. Respondents
Through: Ms Astha Tyagi, Advocate for L&B/LAC.
Ms Manika Tripathy, Standing Counsel for DDA with Mr Ashutosh Kaushik, Mr Naveen K. Sarswat and Mr Rony John, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, praying for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject lands admeasuring 1 bigha comprising in Khasra Nos.731 of Village Tuglakabad, Delhi bearing Property No.107A and 107B respectively be deemed to have lapsed by virtue of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter the 2013 Act).
2. The present petition was allowed by an order dated 08.12.2017, inter alia, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.: (2014) 3 SCC 183. The Court held that the acquisition had lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as it was not disputed that the possession of the subject land had not been taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC).
3. The aforesaid order dated 08.12.2017, was set aside by an order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.166581/2021 and the above captioned petition was restored before this Court for consideration afresh in view of the subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Ors.: (2020) 8 SCC 129 whereby the earlier decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (supra) was overruled.
4. There is no dispute as to the facts obtaining in the present case. The subject land was covered under a Notification dated 10.11.1960 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter the LA Act). The said Notification was followed by a declaration issued under Section 6 of the LA Act issued on 04.01.1969. Thereafter, an award (being Award No.66/1986-87) was passed on 19.09.1986.
5. Certain persons, including the petitioners father and predecessors in interest had filed a writ petition [being W.P.(C)1815/1986] in this court challenging the Notification dated 10.11.1960 issued under Section 4 of the Act and the declaration dated 04.01.1969 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act, claiming that the same were not in accordance with law. The said petition was dismissed by an order dated 14.08.2003. However, during the pendency of the said petition, the petitioner had secured an interim order restraining the concerned authorities from taking over the possession of the land belonging to the petitioners in that case, including the subject lands. The said interim order continued to be operative till the petition was disposed of on 14.08.2003.
6. It is the case of the LAC that the possession of the subject land was not taken over in view of the stay order passed in W.P.(C) 1815/1986. However, the LAC had deposited the compensation in Revenue Deposit (RD) on 19.03.1987.
7. The LAC has also filed an affidavit enclosing therewith the challan in Form-E indicating a credit of a sum ?5,96,437.36/- against the Award No.66/86-87 in respect of Village Tuglakabad. LAC has also filed a translated copy of the possession report dated 22.09.1986 indicating that the possession of the subject land comprising Khasra No.731 of Village Tuglakabad could not be taken over by virtue of the stay orders passed in favour of the land owners restraining the authorities from dispossessing them.
8. In Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court had authoritatively held that the two conditions as specified in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act that the possession has not been taken over and that the compensation has not been paid were required to be satisfied cumulatively for the acquisition to lapse by virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Since it has not been disputed that the LAC had deposited the compensation, the said condition is not satisfied. The land owners had not collected the compensation as they were challenging the notification and the declaration issued under Section 4 and Section 6 of the LA Act respectively.
9. Since one of the twin conditions under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is satisfied, it is not necessary to examine whether the second condition whether the possession of the subject land was deemed to have been taken over notwithstanding that the physical possession was not taken over on account of the stay order obtained by the land owners was satisfied.
10. In view of the above, the petitioners challenge to the acquisition of the subject land on the ground of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, must fail.
11. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed
12. It is clarified that all other rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
APRIL 16, 2024
RK
W.P.(C) 1460/2016 Page 1 of 1