Dismissed

Damini Wadhwa v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC15 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/73/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a petition seeking a declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act that proceedings had lapsed. The Court held that since physical possession was taken and compensation paid to the recorded owners in 1987, the petitioner's status as a subsequent purchaser did not grant them locus standi to challenge past procedural actions.

What did the court decide?

Declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was not granted as the petition lacked merit.

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

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Signing Date:16.10.2024 16:56:32 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per W.P.(C) 73/2017 the physical file an d no page is missing.

In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 25.11.1980 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on 18.06.1985. Thereafter, an award bearing no.23/87-88 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 17.06.1987.

¶7

Mr. N.S. Vasisht, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the physical possession of the land has not been taken, and the compensation in respect thereof has not been paid, the petitioner would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. Learned counsel further relies on the decision rendered by the Supreme Couft' in;Gov/, of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and aridther,^xt^orXQd in 2017 (6) SCC 751, in response to the stand .taken by LAC in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as he is not the recorded owner. Reliance' k placed on para 28 of this judgment which reads,as under:

¶8

“28. Thus, the subsequent purch^ the assignee, the successor in interest, the power-of-attorney holder, etc., are all persons who are interested in compensation/lqndowners/ affected ]persons in terms of the 2013 Act and sudh persons are entitled to file a case for a declaration that the land acquisition . proceedings have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the 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. ”

W.P.(C) 73/2017

Page 2 of6

On the other hand, Ms. Aastha Tyagi learned counsel for the LAC submits that physical possession of the subject land has been taken and compensation has been tendered to the recorded owners. She further submits that it is not open for the petitioner to dispute the possession for the reason that the petitioner has purchased the subject land from Mrs. Manisha Singh vide Agreement to Sell dated 06.09.2006 i.e. post passing of the Award, and the possession was taken from the recorded owners/to'whom compensation was ' ^ also paid. Relevant Para(s) of the. counter affidavit filed by LAC

¶14

"8. That in thepresm cdsfiy^hpf^pession ofthefand in question waktake^oven^nd^Jianded over to %e beneficiary depS^0;^^^7.1987 and afper Statement "A " compensdtioiVwas paid to the recorded “""‘ilillf

¶15

SI No. Name Remarks
317 ManshnX] \Paid vide Ch.
?No.82537 dt.
14.09.87
318 Amar Singh 916988.71 Paid as below:
;
318/1 Dharamveer 222355.19 yPaid dt.30.09.87
318/2 Jas^e4t^i ^2i2235MSl '^Baid dt. 30.09.87
318/3 Mahaveer' '222355.19- Paid dt.30.09.87
Singh
318/4 Viay Singh 222355.19 Paiddt.30.09.87

¶16

9. It is submitted that the writ petition has been filed at the behest ofthe subsequent purchaser who having full knowledge about the status ofthe land in question got the land transferred after the same was notified for acquisition under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The transfer was done in

W.P.(C) 73/2017

Page 3 0/6

violation of Section 4 Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, without first obtaining a written permission ofthe competent authority under the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972. "

¶21

Counter affidavit has also been filed by DDA, relevant portion of which reads as under:

¶22

"The physical possession of the land was handed over to the DDA by the LAC/L&B Department, Govt, of NCT of Delhi on 16.07.1987. Copy of the possession proceedings is annexed as ANNEXURE-R3/1 .

We have heard learned counsel,for-the parties, ^

¶27

The learned - counsel rfor tlie ri^ef^ion^^^ submitted'-that neither physical, ;,possession 'spfv tle-MSufij^t^la^^ has been'>faken nor compensation has beeh\paiditp|the:|petitioner. Counsel has also submitted that the objections pf-'tli^MC regarding locus standi of the petitioner is misplaceddn vie|^;of|the observations made by the Supreme Court in Mafj^jDi^rnrn^m (supra) where the rights of the subsequent purc|a^j^^ ^^i;|^ognised.

¶28

Reading of the counter''faYi|&MfiIie^^^^ LAC makes it clear that

¶29

compensation was paid to the recorded owners on various dates. The names of the'•recoTdb^70wners;tche^ numbers and their respective dates have been provided. Accordingly, the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that the compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner is without any force. As far as possession of the subject land is concerned, the counter affidavit filed by LAC and DDA makes it clear that the possession of the subject land has been taken on 16.07.1987. In our view it is not open for the petitioner who claims to be a subsequent purchaser, to

1 •,

Page 4 of6

W.P.(C) 73/2017

raise the plea that the possession proceedings are not in accordance with law for the reason that the persons who received the compensation, at no point complained that physical possession has not been taken. This objection of the petitioner regarding possession is highly belated and misplaced.

¶34

¶35

¶36

We are of the considered view that the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present'case for the rWson that in this case the physical possession has. .been taken on^'T6.07.1987 and compensation’has beenVpaid/toMe}rec^^^ ownenin'the year 1987 on various dates as'd.etailedjn^a|^^^;|ab^^ In case-the^physical possession had been takenianci‘|?^;^pWsation having not-lDeen paid at ail, in those circums^nces^me%em^sion rendered in the case of Manav Dharma Trust ('ilfp|a)iwpuld|com to the aid and rescue of the petitioner.

¶37

Having regard to thp Vhbmissfdnsfimade and the categorical assertion made in the''^eo^fe|;dffidaYit' filed by LAC as well by DDA, that the possession of the subject land has been taken over . on 16.07.1987 and &]QG^|ensatiGn|l^^^ paid to the recorded owners, we are of the considered view that the relief so claimed and pressed before this Court by the petitioner cannot be granted. 12. Hence we are of the view that the present petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

W.P.(C) 73/2017

Page 5 of6

C.M.No.439/2017 (Stay)

¶43