Damini Wadhwa v. Union of India and Ors

G.S.SISTANI, J. G

SEHGAL, J.

< $-44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgement: 15"^ March, 2018 + W.P.(C) 88/2017 & C.M.No.494/2017 DAMINI WADHWA Petitioner Through: Mr. N.S. Vaslsht and Ms. Jyoti Kataria Bajaj, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Respondents Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda Adv. for L&B/LAC. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel with'Mr. Hem Kumar and Ms. Simmee Kumar, Advs. For DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SlSTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S. SISTANI. J. (Oral) ,' 1. Pleadings are complete;^ccOTdmgly^;:&^^ writ petition is set down for final hearing?/■ ,-4?/: ' 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the. acquisition proceedings with respect to land comprised in Khasra No. 627, measuring 1 Bigha 11 Biswas (1554 sq.yds.) situated in the revenue estate of village Maidan Garhi, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'subject land') stand lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as '2013 Act') as neither the actual physical possession of the Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. (o subject land has been taken nor compensation in respect thereof has been paid. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 25.11.1980 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on 18.06.1985. Thereafter, an award bearing no.23/87-88 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 17.06.1987. Mr. N.S. Vasisht, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the physical possession of the land has not been taken, and the compensation in respect thereof has not been paid, the petitioner would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. Learned , counsef iflirther relies on the decision rendered by the Suprerne Court -in . of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and ahotlier, reported in 2017 (6) SCC 751, in response to the stand taken by/LAC the counter affidavit that the petitioner has no Igeiis stgii^ tolile th present petition as he is not the recorded owner. ''Reiian|eLi's^ on para 28 of this judgment which reads as under:- "28. Thus, the'subsequent purchase^ the assignee, the successor in interest, the power-of-attorney holder, etc., are all persons who are interested in compensation/landowners/ affected persons in terms of the 2013 Act and such persons are entitled to file a case for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is a declaration qua the land wherein indisputably they have an interest and they are affected by such acquisition. For such a W.P. (C) 88/2017 -1 declaration, it cannot be said that the respondent-writ petitioners do not have any locus standi. " 5. On the other hand, Mr. Panda learned counsel for the LAC submits that physical possession of the subject land has been taken and compensation has been tendered to the recorded owners. He further submits that it is not open for the petitioner to dispute the possession for the reason that the petitioner has purchased the subject land from Sh. Dharmender Kumar, Smt. Jaswanti Devi and Sh. Dharmender Kumar jointly legal heirs of late Sh. Ashok Kumar vide Agreement to Sell dated 18;f)5.2006 i.e. post passing of the award, and the possessioh. was taken from the recorded owners to whom compensation was -alsb paid. Relevant Para(s) of the counter affidavit filed by LAC feads as under: "8. That in the present case^dJie possession of the land in question was take, pverpahd handed over to the beneficiary depdi^tp^nti on 16.07.1987 and as per Statement "A " compehsdiion was paid to the recorded owners as under , ^ =■' J.'; SINo. Name Amount Remarks Mansha 889420.79 Paid vide Ch