Vikash v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors

G.S.SISTANI, J. SEHGAL, J

c $-50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date ofJudgement: 10''^ October, 2018 + VIKAS Petitioner Through: Mr. Sunil K Goei, Advocate. Versus GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI AND ORS Respondents Through: Mr. B Mahapatra, Advocate for Govt of NCTofDeihi. Mr. Yeeshu Jain Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B. Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G.S. SISTANL J. (Oral) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking a declara:tiOn that the acquisition proceedings with respect to (00-10) 1/144"^ share of the land comprised in Khasra No. 89/3/1 (07-16) and 89/3/2 (64-05), admeasuring 72 Bighas 01 Biswa, situated in the revenue estate of village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Shahdra, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'subject land') is deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter refeiTcd to as '2013 Act') as neither the actual physical possession of the W.P.(C) 19/201S 2^2 subject land has been taken nor the compensation in respect thereof has been paid to the petitioner. 2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 23.06.1989 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on 20.06.1990. Thereafter, an Award bearing no. 8/1992-93 was passed on 19.06.1992. 3. Mr. Sunil K Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the actual physical possession of the subject land has not been taken and compensation in respect thereof has not been paid, thus the petitioner would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. He further submits that his submission is further fortified by the stand taken by the LAC in the. counter affidavit. Learned counsel further relies on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and another, reported at 2017 (6) SCC 751, in response to the stand taken by LAC in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as he is not the recorded owner. Reliance is placed on para 28 of this judgment which reads as under:- "28. Thus, the subsequent purchaser, 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 compensation 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 W.P. (C) 19/2018 declaration qua the land wherein indisputably they have an interest and they are affected by such acquisition. For such a declaration, it cannot be said that the respondent-writ petitioners do not have any locus standi. " Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel for the LAC has raised an objection that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was not the recorded owner of the subject land and the Gaon Sabha was shown as the recorded owner in the revenue records, hence the petitioner has no right on the subject land. In support of his submissions, counsel for LAC relies on paragraph 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under:- "5. That the present wnt petition is liable to be dismissed as the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner were not the recorded owner of the subject land but the Gaon Sabha was shown as the recorded owner of the subject land falling in khasra number 89/3/1 and 89/2/2, village Ghonda Gujran Khadar. The writ petition is also liable to be dismissed as the petitioners have not placed on record any document which allegedly asserted their alleged rights as in the subject land. No Surviving Membership Certificate has been filed along-with the writ petition." "6. That it is subm itted that