Petitioner challenged land acquisition notification lapsing under the 2013 Act, arguing possession was never taken within five years of that Act. Court held acquisition lapsed in 2000 when possession was taken and compensation paid under the old Act, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 07.09.2017
KULDEEP RANA ..... Petitioner Through : Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Sh. Harpreet Singh and Sh. M.C. Verma, Advocates. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for UOI. Sh. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate. Sh. Arjun Pant, Advocate, for DDA.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
W.P.(C) 11340/2015 Page 1 of 3
The petitioner, claiming to be in possession of the suit lands since 1989, argues that since his lawful possession was not disturbed, with the enactment of the 2013 Act, the acquisition lapsed, because possession was not taken any time in 5 years before commencement of the said Act. 3. The Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) resist these proceedings. Both argue that possession of the acquired lands-including suit lands was taken; it is also stated that the compensation was paid to, and collected by the recorded owner.
“6. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in his individual name on the basis of GPA which writ petition should otherwise have been maintained only in the name of the recorded owner as the „Agreement to Sell‟ does not confer any right, title, or interest to the petitioner as no sale deed has follows in pursuance to the said „Agreement to Sell‟.
7. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as after completing the acquisition related requirements under the law, the answering respondent has duly taken the actual vacant physical possession of the subject land falling in khasra number 57/18 (1-00) as reflected in the name of Shyam Sunder Gupta on 9.5.2000 and the said recorded owner namely Mr.Shyam Sunder Gupta has also received the compensation of Rs.4,27,365/- against the said land vide cheque number 540190 on 27.8.2002. Thus having accepted the compensation after the actual possession was duly taken by the Government, there remains nothing in the present writ petition which is to be adjudicated upon by the Hon‟ble Court and the same deserves dismissal.
W.P.(C) 11340/2015 Page 2 of 3
8. That it is submitted that the lands of village Prehlad Pur Bangar were notified vide Notification under Section 4 & 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 27.10.1999 which was followed by the Notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 3.4.2000 as the purpose of the acquisition was Rohini Residential Scheme, Phase IV and V. The Award was also passed vide Award No.14/2002-03 dated 8.7.2002 and the actual physical vacant possession was also taken on 9.5.2000 in pursuance of the urgency clause and also the compensation was duly paid to its recorded owner in the year 2002 vide cheque number, stated supra.”
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
SEPTEMBER 07, 2017
SUNIL GAUR, J
W.P.(C) 11340/2015 Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an acquisition notification lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession was taken and compensation was paid before the Act commenced.
Whether a petitioner holding rights via an unregistered agreement to sell has locus standi to challenge an acquisition completed against the recorded owner.
Whether the Government taking vacant possession and paying compensation before the 2013 Act vitals the applicability of Section 24(2).
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Kuldeep Rana
Union of India
Delhi Development Authority
S. Ravindra Bhat
Sunil Gaur
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
