Disposed

Rashtriya Vikas Samiti (Regd.) v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Delhi HC22 Nov 2017W.P.(C)/9479/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi disposed of a PIL regarding land intended for a school. Relying on a prior order declaring acquisition proceedings lapsed, the court held the petition infructuous. It directed the respondents to prevent any illegal or unauthorized construction on the land.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as rendered infructuous. A direction was issued to respondent nos.1 to 4 to ensure no illegal or unauthorized construction is permitted on the land.

Rashtriya Vikas Samiti (Regd.) Vs North Delhi Municipal… — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~6

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ W.P.(C) 9479/2015, CM Nos.22252/2015, 46294/2016 & 6762/2017

¶4

% Date of decision : 22^nd November, 2017

¶5

RASHTRIYA VIKAS SAMITI (REGD.) ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Mr. Ateev Mathur and Ms. Jagriti Ahuja, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS ... Respondents Through : Mr. Ajjay Aroraa, Adv. for NDMC. Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advs. for R-2. Mr. Naushad Ahmad Khan, ASC for GNCTD. Ms. Yeeshu Jain, Adv.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶10

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶11

GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶12

This writ petition was filed in public interest litigation with regard to land admeasuring 2655.20 sq. yds., stated to be forming part of property No.11231/32/XII situated at the revenue estate of Roop Nagar, Delhi. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that this land stood leased to the respondent no.2 and 3 for running of a school and that the respondents were arbitrarily and illegally not

¶13

W.P.(C)No.9479/2015 Page 1 of 3

¶14

taking possession of the land. Additionally, the writ petition seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 to 4 to ensure that no unauthorized construction is carried out by any person on this land.

¶15

On the last date of hearing, i.e., 28^th August, 2017, a copy of the order dated 24^th May, 2016 passed in WP(C)No.3423/2015 Govind Singh & Ors. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors . was placed before us whereby this court had made a declaration that acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of land admeasuring 2655.2 sq. Yards of the total land 7978.4 sq. yards which was the subject matter of award No.1894/1966-67 dated 31^st January, 1966 are deemed to have lapsed in view of the provision of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶16

The ld. counsels for the parties sought time to examine the impact of this order and make submissions.

¶17

There can be no dispute with this position.

¶18

Mr. Naushad Ahmad Khan, ld. ASC for the GNCTD makes a grievance that the acquisition of the land could not have lapsed inasmuch as circumstances were created and litigation was initiated against the official respondents which prevented them from taking possession of the land.

¶19

It is further submitted that illegal and unauthorized construction was raised on the subject land on a large scale which was permitted to stand by the other respondents for which reasons physical possession was never handed over by the acquiring agency to the Department of

¶20

W.P.(C)No.9479/2015 Page 2 of 3

¶21

Education.

¶22

It is further submitted that the correct picture was not brought before the court while passing the order dated 24^th May, 2016.

¶23

Be that as it may, so far as these proceedings are concerned, the order dated 24^th May, 2016 binds our consideration. It is for the respondent no.1 to take steps it may be advised in law, with regard to the said order.

¶24

In view of the said order dated 24^th May, 2016, the writ petition qua the same land which is the subject matter of that order cannot survive and is to be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. 10. In view thereof, this writ petition and pending applications are disposed of with a direction to respondent nos.1 to 4 to ensure that no illegal or unauthorized construction is permitted to stand or to be raised on the aforesaid land, which is the subject matter of this writ petition.

¶25

Dasti to parties .

¶26

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶28

NOVEMBER 22, 2017 mk

¶29

W.P.(C)No.9479/2015 Page 3 of 3

Rashtriya Vikas Samiti (Regd.) v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashtriya Vikas Samiti (Regd.) v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashoda Murmu Vs Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority

Surjeet Kaur Vs Delhi Vidut Board Employees Terminal Benefits Fund 2002 (Pension Department)

Ikramuddin Vs Shankar

Pushpa Aggarwal Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.

Sohan Lal Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Shobha Tayal Vs Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Khubhi Ram Vs M/S Ashok Leyland Ltd.

Ompal Singh Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr.

Maulana Ansar Raza Vs Farooq Abdullah Former Chief Minister & Ors.

Mohd. Irfan Khan Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ramesh Mardia & Anr. Vs M/S Koxan India & Anr.

Tuhin a. Sinha Vs Rahul Gandhi and Ors.

Ratan Das Vs Assistant Commissioner(South) Food & Supplies :Government of Delhi

Edara Gopi Chand Vs Union of India & Anr.