The High Court dismissed petitions challenging land acquisition, holding that proceedings did not lapse under the 2013 Act because possession was taken and compensation was sought by petitioners before the new law, barring claims despite later assertions.
Petitions dismissed without order on costs; interim orders vacated.
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.
$~
RESERVED ON: 03.08.2017
AZAD @ ANAND SINGH & ORS. …Petitioners
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …Respondents
W.P. (C) 7143/2015, CM APPL.13107/2015
KHAZAN SINGH & ORS. …Petitioners
Versus
GOVT .OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. …Respondents
Present: Mr. Sanjay Parikh with Mr. Aagney Sail and Ms. Maulshree Pathak, Advocates for petitioners.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for LAC/L&B with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate.
Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Advocate for DSIIDC with Mr. Abhishek Pundir, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
Page 1 of 8
W.P.(C)5515/2015 & 7143/2015
lands in respect of which they claim the declaration are located in village Kilokari.
2. The lands in Karala, were subject to acquisition, by a notification under Section 4, dated 25.08.2005; declaration under Section 6 was issued on 10.07.2006. The award, being No. 03/2008-09 was made on 26.05.2008. According to the respondents possession of the suit lands and other such acquired lands, covered by the notification, was taken over in July. The lands were handed over to the beneficiary department/agency, on 9th February 2007.
― Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),—
Page 2 of 8
W.P.(C)5515/2015 & 7143/2015
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.‖
Page 3 of 8
W.P.(C)5515/2015 & 7143/2015
Counsel submitted that two conditions had to be fulfilled for the application of Section 24(2) - the award must have been made 5 years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and either compensation has not been paid or physical possession of the land has not been taken by the respondents. The following passage in Sukhbir Singh (supra) was also relied upon:
―The picture that therefore emerges on a reading of Section 24(2) is that the State has no business to expropriate from a citizen his property if an award has been made and the necessary steps to complete acquisition have not been taken for a period of five years or more. These steps include the taking of physical possession of land and payment of compensation. What the legislature is in effect telling
Page 4 of 8
W.P.(C)5515/2015 & 7143/2015
the executive is that they ought to have put their house in order and completed the acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time after pronouncement of award. Not having done so even after a leeway of five years is given, would cross the limits of legislative tolerance, after which the whole proceeding would be deemed to have lapsed. It is important to notice that the Section gets attracted if the acquisition proceeding is not completed within five years after pronouncement of the award. This may happen either because physical possession of the land has not been taken or because compensation has not been paid, within the said period of five years. Secondly, the object of the Act, and Section 24 in particular, is that in case an award has been made for five years or more, possession ought to have been taken within this period, or else it is statutorily presumed that the balance between the citizen’s right to retain his own property and the right of the State to expropriate it for a public purpose gets so disturbed as to make the acquisition proceedings lapse. Alternatively, if compensation has not been paid within this period, it is also statutorily presumed that the aforesaid balance gets disturbed so as to free such property from acquisition.‖
―(iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/structure exists, mere going on the spot by the concerned authority will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the concerned authority
Page 5 of 8
W.P.(C)5515/2015 & 7143/2015
will have to give notice to the occupier of the building/structure or the person who has cultivated the land and take possession in the presence of independent witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of course, refusal of the owner of the land or building/structure may not lead to an inference that the possession of the acquired land has not been taken.‖
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State Of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 792 too was relied on to say that possession was not taken over, as claimed and that the petitioners continue to be in control of the lands.
7. The NCT of Delhi, the appropriate government, and the Delhi State Infrastructure and Industrial Development Corporation (DSIIDC) dispute the petition and argue that the landowners are estopped from contending that they were not dispossessed from their lands. They urge that the petitioners applied for compensation; in those documents, they clearly stated that possession of their land had been handed over to the authorities. Copies of those applications are placed on the record. It is also submitted that in addition, the landowners also executed surety bonds, which too indicated that possession had been taken. Counsel for DSIIDC also points out that the arguments of the petitioners are without factual foundation, because after possession of the lands were taken over, they were developed and boundary walls were constructed. Further the contract for development of an industrial area was awarded, along with possession of the acquired lands. Most importantly, it is argued that the petitioners- or at least most of them, had claimed special rehabilitation package (SRP) amounts, in accordance with the Govt. of NCT scheme dated 01.10.2008. It was argued that by the SRP, farmers
Page 6 of 8
W.P.(C)5515/2015 & 7143/2015
covered by the scheme were given substantial additional packages, for each year when the acquisition was underway, in addition to the compensation payable under the old Act. The SRP was applicable to farm lands, and the land-owners had to give up the challenge to the assessed normal compensation in the award. It is submitted that in respect of identical lands, which were acquired in village Kanjhawala, this court had held, in Jai Kishan v Govt. of NCT of Delhi WP 5395/2015, decided on 21st February, 2017, that those who accepted such SRP amounts would not be entitled to maintain a challenge, under Article 226 of the Constitution, based on Section 24 of the 2013 Act.
―The key point in this batch of matters is whether the petitioners had any right left in subject lands? As noted above, in the undertakings given by the petitioners in 2011, while opting for the Special Rehabilitation Package and receiving additional payments thereunder, they had clearly divested themselves of all
Page 7 of 8
W.P.(C)5515/2015 & 7143/2015
their rights in respect of the subject acquired lands. Thus, at the time of commencement of the 2013 Act on 01.01.2014, the petitioners had no right, title or interest left in the subject lands. Therefore, they cannot claim any benefit under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. On this ground alone, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
11. Consequently, we dismiss the writ petitions but, with no order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.‖
S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)
S.P. GARG (JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 02, 2017
Page 8 of 8
W.P.(C)5515/2015 & 7143/2015
3 issues framed by the court
Whether land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where possession was taken and compensation applied for by petitioners des
Whether petitioners who applied for Special Rehabilitation Package amounts and undertook not to pursue land rights are barred from challenging acquisition under the 2013 Act.
Whether the petitioners maintained any right, title, or interest in the acquired lands at the time the 2013 Act came into force.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir SinghRelied on¶33
Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh AIR 2016 SC 4275 · Who else cites this
Prahlad Singh v Union of IndiaRelied on¶46
Prahlad Singh v Union of India (2011) 5 SCC 386 · Who else cites this
Nahar Singh v State of UPRelied on¶46
Nahar Singh v State of UP 1996 (1) SCC 434 · Who else cites this
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State Of HaryanaRelied on¶51
Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State Of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 792 · Who else cites this
Jai Kishan v Govt. of NCT of DelhiDistinguished¶55
Jai Kishan v Govt. of NCT of Delhi WP 5395/2015
Bhim Singh v Govt. of NCT of DelhiDistinguished¶56
Bhim Singh v Govt. of NCT of Delhi WP 9101/2014
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Azad @ Anand Singh & Ors.
Khazan Singh & Ors.
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
S. Ravindra Bhat
S.P. Garg
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
