ROMILLA SAWHNEY vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 24.04.2024
+ W.P.(C) 2729/2015
SMT.ROMILLA SAWHNEY ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sameer Rohatgi and Mr.Kartikey Singh, Advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, SC, Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr.M.S.Akhtar, Ms.Nidhi Thakur and Mr.Mayank Arora, Advocates for R1 and R2.
Ms.Manika Tripathy, SC for DDA.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed above captioned petition, inter alia, challenging the acquisition of the land admeasuring 14 bighas and 4 biswas comprised in new Khasra Nos.5/25/3(0-5), 28/11(4-16), 28/20(4-16) and 28/21(4-7), situated in the revenue estate of Village Bamnauli, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereafter the subject land).
2. The subject land was included in the notification No.F9(50)/04/L&B/ LA/13299 dated 04.11.2004 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter the 1894 Act). The notification was followed by the declaration made under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. Thereafter, the Award (No.1/2007-08) was published on 06.08.2007. The subject land was acquired for the purpose of Planned Development of Delhi.
3. The petitioner filed a petition being W.P.(C) No.2143/2007 challenging the acquisition of the subject land, which was taken up along with the other similar petitions, the leading matter being W.P.(C) No.1692/2006 captioned Pawan Sagar Jain v. Union of India & Ors.: Neutral Citation: 2010 DHC:1821-DB. These petitions were disposed of by the judgment dated 26.03.2010. The operative part of the said decision is set out below: –
43. We thus permit the petitioners to file a representation to the competent authority under Section 48 of the said Act raising all pleas as are germane within thirty days of pronouncement of this judgment and the said applications, if so filed, would be decided in accordance with law by the competent authority. Till such time as the applications are decided, no coercive steps will be taken against the petitioners and the parties will maintain status quo as to nature, title and possession of the land in question. In case of an adverse decision, this benefit would continue for a period of fifteen days after the date of the receipt of the decision by the petitioners in order to enable the petitioners to take recourse to the legal remedy, if any. We, however, make it clear that if no such application is filed within a period of thirty days of pronouncement of this judgment, the respondents would be free to proceed against the land in question.
4. The aforesaid order was passed, inter alia, in view of the contention of the land owners that a public statement was made by the concerned authorities to the effect that built-up farm houses would be excluded from the purview of the acquisition.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision, the petitioner made a representation dated 22.04.2010 to the Honble Lieutenant Governor, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. The said representation remained undecided for a considerable period of time. However, on 13.06.2014, the petitioner received a letter calling upon her to file the building plan and completion certificate in respect of the built-up property (farm house) on the subject land and the details of the compensation, if any, received by the petitioner.
6. The petitioner responded to the said letter by a communication dated 07.07.2014 stating that the subject land is free from acquisition and therefore, no proceedings would be required to be undertaken. The said contention was founded on the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (hereafter the 2013 Act). A copy of such communication dated 07.07.2014 has been handed over across in the Court. The same indicates that the building plan and completion certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), as required to be furnished by the letter dated 13.06.2014, was also enclosed with the said letter.
7. Since, no further steps were taken by the concerned authorities, the petitioner filed present petition, inter alia, praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions that the acquisition of the subject land has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
8. The present petition was allowed vide judgment dated 11.04.2017 and the matter was carried in appeal by respondent no3, Delhi Development Authority and the judgment dated 11.04.2017 was set aside by the Supreme Court vide order dated 13.01.2023 in Civil Appeal No.318/2023 captioned Delhi Development Authority v. Romilla Sawhney & Others in view of the decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Others: (2020) 8 SCC 129.
9. It is material to note that the petitioner had secured an interim order in terms of the order passed in Pawan Sagar Jain v. Union of India (supra) and therefore, the respondents were interdicted from altering the status quo in respect of the subject land till the disposal of the representation filed by the petitioner and the other similarly placed persons. Since further steps in respect of the acquisition were interdicted by the orders of this Court, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit of the provisions of 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Others (supra).
10. In view of above, the prayer as sought in the present petition cannot be granted.
11. Since the entire matter proceeded on the basis that the subject land was free from acquisition a claim which is rejected we consider it apposite to relegate the petitioner to the position obtaining on 07.07.2014. The petitioner may furnish a proper response, if necessary to the letter dated 13.06.2014 within a period of four weeks from date.
12. The concerned authority shall consider the representation in terms of the decision of this Court in Pawan Sagar Jain v. Union of India (supra) expeditiously.
13. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
APRIL 24, 2024
M
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
W.P.(C) 2729/2015 Page 1 of 1