Allowed

Balwant Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC16 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/10885/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi allowed five writ petitions filed by landowners challenging the acquisition of their land. The Court held that since the State failed to take physical possession or tender compensation, and no notice was issued, the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The petitions were allowed and the acquisition proceedings declared as lapsed.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Balwant Singh Vs Union of India and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~8 to 12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 16^th February, 2018 + W.P.(C) 10876/2016 ATTAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.V.P.Rana and Mr.Prem Garg, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for respondent/L&B-LAC. Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel with Ms.Akshita Manocha, Ms.Komal Sorout and Ms.Gauri Chaturvedi, Advocates for respondent/DDA. + W.P.(C) 10881/2016 J P GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.V.P.Rana and Mr.Prem Garg, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for respondent/L&B-LAC. Ms.Sapna Chauhan, Advocate for respondent/DDA.

¶3

W.P. (C) No.10876/2016 etc.

¶4

Page 1 of 7

¶5

W.P.(C) 10885/2016 BALWANT SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.V.P.Rana and Mr.Prem Garg, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mrs.K.Kaomudi Kiran Pathak & Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocates for respondent/L&B-LAC. Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel with Ms.Akshita Manocha, Ms.Komal Sorout and Ms.Gauri Chaturvedi, Advocates for respondent/DDA. + W.P.(C) 10887/2016 SUDHA GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.V.P.Rana and Mr.Prem Garg, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for respondent/L&B-LAC. Ms.Sapna Chauhan, Advocate for respondent/DDA. + W.P.(C) 10892/2016 SAROJ BALA ..... Petitioner

¶6

W.P. (C) No.10876/2016 etc.

¶7

Page 2 of 7

¶8

Through: Mr.V.P.Rana and Mr.Prem Garg, Advocates.

¶9

versus

¶10

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for respondent/L&B-LAC. Mr.Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel with Ms.Akshita Manocha, Ms.Komal Sorout and Ms.Gauri Chaturvedi, Advocates for respondent/DDA.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

¶13

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Pleadings are complete.

¶15

With the consent of the parties, the writ petitions are set down for final hearing and disposal.

¶16

Arguments have been addressed individually, however, for the sake of convenience the writ petitions are being disposed of, by this common judgment.

¶17

Present petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to their respective shares in the lands are 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 referred to as ‘2013 Act’).

¶18

W.P. (C) No.10876/2016 etc.

¶19

Page 3 of 7

¶20

The details of the writ petitions, name of the petitioners, Khasra numbers and villages are detailed below:-

¶21

Sl.No.	W.P.(C) No.	Name of the Petitioner	Khasra No.	Villag	e
1.	10876/2016	Attar Singh	43/12 min (1-4), Khata Khatauni No.34/18	Moha pur Delhi	mmad- Majri,
2.	10881/2016	J.P.Gupta	43/7 min (2-12), Khata Khatauni No.3/2	Moha pur Delhi.	mmad- Majri,
3.	10885/2016	Balwant Singh	26/21(4-16), 36/1(4-16), 10(4-16), 11(4-16) & 38/4 (4-12) total measuring 23 bighas 16 biswas, Khata Khatauni No.204/100	Moha pur Delhi.	mmad- Majri,
4.	10887/2016	Smt.Sudha Gupta	43/7 min (2-0), Khata Khatauni No.3/2	Moha pur Delhi.	mmad- Majri,
5.	10892/2016	Smt.Saroj Bala	43/12 min (1-0), Khata Khatauni No.35/18	Moha pur Delhi.	mmad- Majri,

¶22

We may note that all the writ petitions pertain to Village Mohammadpur Majri, Delhi.

¶23

In this case, a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 21.03.2003, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on

¶24

W.P. (C) No.10876/2016 etc.

¶25

Page 4 of 7

¶26

19.03.2004 and an Award bearing No.20/2005-06 was passed on 28.11.2005. It is the common case of all the petitioners that neither possession of the land has been taken nor compensation has been tendered to the petitioners.

¶27

In the counter affidavits filed by the LAC, a consistent stand has been taken that the compensation has not been tendered. No notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act was issued to any of the petitioners calling upon them to accept the compensation.

¶28

As far as the possession of land is concerned, the same is noticed writ petition-wise as follows:-

¶29

W.P.(C) Nos.10876/2016, 10881/2016, 10887/2016 & 10892/2016

¶30

The stand of the LAC is that the possession of the land of the petitioners was taken on 02.08.2006; however, the compensation has not been paid to the petitioners. As per counter affidavit filed by the DDA, the possession has been handed over to them by the LAC.

¶31

W.P.(C) 10885/2016

¶32

Para 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under:-

¶33

“That as regards possession and compensation it is humbly submitted that as per possession proceeding report, possession of Khasra No.26//21 min (4-14), 36//1(4-16), 36//10 min(4-14), 36//11(4-16), total measuring 19 bigha has been taken on 02.08.2006. Possession of remaining land comprised in khasra nos.26//21 min(0-2), 36//10 min (0-2), 38//4 min(4-12) total admeasuring 4 bigha 16 biswa has not been taken. So far compensation amount is concerned, it is humbly submitted that compensation amount has not been paid” .

¶34

As per counter affidavit filed by the DDA, the possession of entire land has been taken but counsel points out that in the subsequent

¶35

W.P. (C) No.10876/2016 etc.

¶36

Page 5 of 7

¶37

comments received, the possession of part of the land admeasuring 0 bigha 4 biswa has not been taken.

¶38

W.P.(C) Nos.10876/2016, 10881/2016, 10885/2016, 10887/2016 & 10892/2016

¶39

Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the admitted position that the compensation has not been tendered, the case of the petitioners would squarely fall within the provision of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act. He further submits that actual physical possession of entire land pertaining to all five writ petitions is with the respective petitioners.

¶40

We have heard the counsel for the parties.

¶41

A reading of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act would show that in case, the physical possession of the acquired land has not been taken or the compensation has not been tendered to the land owners, the acquisition proceedings would lapse.

¶42

We may also note that in all these matters as stated during the course of hearing, the Collector had not issued any notice under Section 12(2) of the Act, of his award to the land owners.

¶43

Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners at no point of time refused the acceptance of compensation directly or indirectly by approaching any court by filing any writ petition or seeking any stay in the matter.

¶44

Counsel for the DDA on subsequent comments received has submitted that the land in question is required for Smart City.

¶45

W.P. (C) No.10876/2016 etc.

¶46

Page 6 of 7

¶47

There is nothing before us to show that land has been put to use or there is immediately requirement or any specific plan to put the land to use.

¶48

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in case, the land is required; it is open to the respondents to acquire the land afresh.

¶49

Having regard to the submissions made and the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavits that the compensation has not been tendered to any of the petitioners, we are of the considered view that the petitioners would be entitled to declaration that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed in respect of the land subject matter of writ petitions, in terms of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act. It is declared accordingly.

¶50

The writ petitions stand allowed.

¶51

CM Nos.42625/2016, 42631/2016, 42637/2016, 42644/2016 & 42687/20916 (for stay)

¶52

All these applications stand disposed of, in view of order passed in the writ petition.

¶53

G.S.SISTANI, J.

¶54

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J

¶55

FEBRUARY 16, 2018 afa/ssc

¶56

W.P. (C) No.10876/2016 etc.

¶57

Page 7 of 7

Balwant Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwant Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs G S Thind

Shaleen Kumar Goel & Anr. Vs the Maintenance Tribunal & Ors.

Amod Kumar Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (Tpddl)

Vinod Kumar Shah Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Ors.

Public Information Officer Tihar Jail Vs Om Prakash Gandhi and Anr.

Ranjan Pandey Vs Union of India and Ors.

Investor Protection Group and Anr. Vs Security Exchange Board of India and Anr.

Natwar Lal Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Bal Kishan & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rita Marwah Vs Lt. Governor & Ors.

Vijay Mohan Vs Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Kamal Kant & Ors. Vs Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authourity (Apeda) & Anr.

Mohd. Lal Vs New-Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Naresh Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.