Allowed

Vijay Trishal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC20 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/5259/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

petition filed for a declaration that land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because partial possession was taken after the award and full compensation was never paid, the Court ruled the proceedings deemed to have lapsed.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the acquisition proceedings regarding the subject land are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Vijay Trishal Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Signing Date:16.10.2024 16:56:32Certify that the digital and physical file have W.P.(C) 525912016 been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶3

In the present case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 21.03.2003 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on 19.03.2004. Thereafter, an award bearing no.22/2005-06 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 28.12.2005.

¶4

Mr. Puneet Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the physical possession of the subject land has not been taken and compensation in respect thereof has ·not been paid, the petitioner would be entitled to a d_eclaration 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. Learned · counsel., "further relies on . the decision ' .... ' •",>. rendered by the Supreme;. CO.ufi; .. of NCt of Delhi Vs. Manav.Dharma Trust in.2017 (6)SCC 751, . .. in response to the stand;;tak,en: b:y; tAC that the petitioner has no I ;:, :· i: -": : ·.· : •' .' ': . locus standi to file the :p,etitibn as he is not the recorded ,:. I . , owner. Reliance is which reads . . ;:·_ ... :,·;.J<:; .. ·,:\ as under.-· · ... ,:.· . .... , .. ,,.,, ... , S.{J,)t.·'

¶5

()

¶6

_"28. Thus, the. the assignee, the successor tn"""lnterest, ·-the power-of-attorney holder, etc., ,are all persons whCJ; .. are interested in in terms of the 2013 Act and slJC:h;pers(Jns':are entitled to file a case for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) ofthe 2013 Act. It is a declaration qua the land wherein indisputably they have an interest and they are affected by such acquisition. For such a declaration, it cannot be said that the respondent-writ petitioners do not have any locus standi. "

¶7

W.P.(C) 5259/2016

¶8

Page2of5

¶9

Mr. Yeeshu Jain, counsel for the LAC submits that out of total land measuring 4 Bighas 16 Biswas comprised in Khasra No.54//16min,_ actual vacant physical possession of 4 Bighas 13 Biswas was taken in the year 2007 and handed over to the DDA, and the compensation amount in respect thereof has not been paid to the recorded owner. Mr. Jain has also opposed this petition on the ground that the petitioner is claiming benefit under Section 24(2) of the 20 13 Act based on General· Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell which cannot. title on the petitioner as the same are not admissible 9ftransfer. Relevant portion of the counter affidavit filed by :·L:Ac·:

¶10

' . ' : . ,· ' .. ;,, : ::i:

¶11

"That the to be dismissed as petitioner is not': the of the subject land but the prese.nt has been filed in the name ofthepetitiqner. whq :'i$ i:)aiming to be the GPA holder. The maintain the writ petition in his AI Agreement to Sell/ Affidavit e.tc: any right, title or interest on the documents are not the admissible mddes'·ojii-an'S/eioflands.

¶12

XXX

¶13

r.··· {."' ..

¶14

It is of the total land measuring 4-16, the. has taken physical possession of(4-13) and (0-03) could not be taken.

¶15

XXX

¶16

The Award was also passed vide Award No. 22/200506 dated 28.12.2005 and the possession of the lands falling in .khasra number 54//16min (4-13) was also taken in the year 2007 itself on the· spot and handed over to the DDA on the spot by preparing possession proceeding on the spot. The recorded owner never

¶17

W.P.(C) 5259/2016

¶18

Page3 ofS

¶19

turned up- to claim compensation as he perhaps sold the lands through unauthorized modes of transfer. "

¶20

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation has been paid to the petitioner. Counsel has also submitted that the objections of the LAC regarding locus standi of the petitioner is misplaced in view of the _observations made by the Supreme Court. in Manav Dharma Trust. (supra) where the rights of the subsequent purchaser

¶22

Reading of the it clear out of • '' • .• ,l -. • . .. . • \ the total land · m Khasra No.54//16, the actual .. of only 4 Bighas 13 :: ',.- ', "' ' ' ::'! . Biswas has been taken in - _ .... 11;.:1,·.·:,' ;J.t..·,_ 2007 and the compensation in ,-.:·· respect of the entire arei land has not been paid to __ .. /. recorded owner. As.-.-='faf· with regard to the ..,j·t··. _ ·._ -·,·;_ .. ... .. maintainability is · !·· :--. same to be misplaced in view of the Court in the case of Manav Dharma Tr:qs.((supr.,a). AccordiggJy, the submissions made o. :·; ... .:-=-; ·:: by the counsel for the 'LAC:-that the' petitioner has no locus standi. to file the present petition as he is the subsequent purchaser, holds no ground.

¶23

Having regard to the submissions made and the categorical assertion made in the counter affidavit filed by LAC, that part possession of the subject land has been taken and the compensation in respect of the entire area of subject land has not been paid to the

W.P.'(C) 525912016

Page4of5

petitioner arid since the award has been announced more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act with regard to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.

¶29

It is also made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the title of the above land. The question of title of the subject land is left open to be decided in the appr-opriate court of jurisdiction. 11. The writ petition stands the. ·.

¶30

. · .. ' ,·····.

¶31

•• . G.S.SISTANI; J:--

¶32

MARCH 20, 2018/gr

¶33

W.P.(C) 5259/2016

¶34

PageSofS

Vijay Trishal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Trishal v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Yogendra Mittal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Jagdish Kumar Koli Vs National Bal Bhavan & Anr.

Subhash Saini and Anr. Vs Surat Singh Saini

Shiv Shankar Gupta Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Shiv Shankar Gupta Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi through Its Secretary Vs NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Jha Vs Central Railside Warehouse Company Limited

Nagrik Samasya Samadhan Samiti Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

G Raju Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Dharampal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Chatar Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jai Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.