Dismissed

Indu Bala & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Sept 2017W.P.(C)/7978/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the petitioners' challenge to a 1967 acquisition award by a 2010 purchaser as untenable. However, directing NHAI to mark property portions on the ground before demolition and process compensation applications expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

NHAI directed to physically mark portions of properties falling within ROW on ground; concerned authority directed to process compensation application within six weeks.

Indu Bala & Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~75

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 7978/2017 & C.Ms.32910-11/17 INDU BALA & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar, Advocate

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for respondentL&B/LAC Mr. Satyendra Kumar, CGSC for respondent No.2 Ms. Madhu Smeta and Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocates for respondent No.3 Mr. Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel for respondent-DDA

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 08.09.2017

¶9

The petitioners had approached this Court alongwith others complaining of unauthorized taking over of lands by the National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as „NHAI‟) pursuant to directions in W.P.(C) 7383/2017. The Court had directed as follows:-

¶10

“6. It is apparent that the dispute in the present petition is one of demarcation. It is brought on record that a demarcation by Total Station Method was carried out and the detailed map (which was drawn up in terms of the demarcation) clearly indicates that portion of the plot numbered as C- 149 falls within ROW. This land was subject to acquisition in 1964. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be faulted.

¶11

7. Notwithstanding the above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since only part of the petitioners‟

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

W.P.(C) 7978/2017

¶14

property falls within the acquired land, NHAI must mark the same on the ground before carrying any demolition activity. He further states that once demarcation is done on the ground, the petitioners would voluntarily demolish the portion of the property that falls within the ROW. The learned counsel for the petitioners had also handed over a photograph which would indicate that only a small portion of their built-up property falls within the linear line of demolition.

¶15

8. This Court is not inclined to examine as to which portion of the land falls within the ROW; it would suffice to direct NHAI to physically mark out the portion of the property of the petitioners that falls within the ROW and give the petitioners sufficient time to demolish the same. It is seen from the map that the line running through the plot occupied by the petitioners as well as adjacent properties, namely, C-150 and C-82 is a straight line, therefore, it is directed that the respondents mark on the ground, the portions of the property bearing numbers C-150, C-151, C-149 and C-82/A which falls within the ROW. Clearly, the mark on the ground will be a linear line. This would allay any apprehension of the petitioners that their property is being selected for demolition in an arbitrary manner. This would also ensure that only such demolition as is necessary for the purposes of NHAI, is carried out and no other portion of the petitioners‟ property which does not fall under ROW is touched.

¶16

9. After the area is marked out on the ground, the petitioners would be provided one week‟s time to voluntarily demolish the property and handover the same to NHAI failing which the NHAI would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

¶17

10. In terms of the reallocation policy, the petitioners are also entitled to compensation of ₹32,000 per sq. mtr of built-up area. Given that the residential property of the petitioners is being demolished, it is understandable that the petitioners would be under urgent need of funds. Accordingly, the concerned authority is directed to process

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

W.P.(C) 7978/2017

¶20

the petitioners‟ application for such compensation as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six weeks from the petitioners filing the application (complete in all respects) with the concerned authority.”

¶21

In the present proceedings, the petitioners question the Award made in 1967 and claim that to the extent it authorizes the taking over of properties, it is unenforceable. It is argued that the petitioners are in settled possession of the properties as having acquired rights through registered Sale-deeds. The Sale-deeds and other conveyance documents relied upon are of recent vintage i.e. they were made in 2010. The materials on record show that the properties were made part of the acquisition pursuant to the Award which was made sometime in 1967.

¶22

In these circumstances, the challenge to the Award, by a purchaser who claims to have acquired rights, 43 years later, is untenable. At the same time, the Court is of the opinion that the NHAI and other respondents are bound by the directions given in the order dated 24^th August, 2017, to the extent of ensuring that only the portions, which can be taken possession of by NHAI, are actually taken over by it.

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. The pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶24

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

¶25

SUNIL GAUR

¶26

(JUDGE)

¶27

SEPTEMBER 08, 2017 s

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

W.P.(C) 7978/2017

Indu Bala & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indu Bala & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Delhi Cantonment Board Vs the Station House Officer P S Delhi Cantt and Anr.

Spl Industries Ltd.(through the Manager Commerical Sh.Sanjay Jain Vs Union Ofo India & Others

Ram Raj Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Team Life Care Insurance (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Surjit Kumar Chetal Vs Commissioner of Income Tax-Xv

Shailender Singh Vs the Kangra Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

M/S Tarouni Construction & Finance (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Veena Mahajan Vs the Registrar Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Anr.

Jagdish Chand Agarwal Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.

Kulbir Singh Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Vijay K. Chaku Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Elgin Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of Inida & Ors.

Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Litmited Vs Vijaya Kuamr Anugandula

Gurbachan Singh Bhatia Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.