Allowed

Hukum Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC15 Feb 2018W.P.(C)/7917/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition seeking a declaration that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The court held that since compensation was not tendered, the proceedings are deemed to have lapsed.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are deemed to have lapsed.

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

¶1

$~20

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Judgment: 15^th February, 2018

¶4

W.P.(C) 7917/2015 HUKUM SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Mr. Pranjal Saran and Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .... Respondents Through: Mr. Roshan Lal Goel and Ms. Cherub Goel, Advocates for UOI. Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for L&B/ LAC.

¶7

Mr. Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel for DDA.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

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

¶10

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

¶11

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated with respect to 11 bigha 14 biswas of the land of petitioners comprised in Khasra nos.33//13/2(1-14), 14(416), 17(5-04), situated in the revenue estate of village Mubarak Pur Dabas, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the subject land‟) is 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 the „2013

¶12

W.P. (C) No.7917/2015

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

Act‟), as neither the possession of the subject land has been taken nor the compensation has been paid to the petitioners.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioners submits that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was issued on 21.03.2003. A Section 6 declaration was made on 19.03.2004 and thereafter an Award bearing no.16/2005-06 was rendered on 14.09.2005. Counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is crystal clear and in case either possession has not been taken or compensation has not been tendered, the acquisition proceedings would deem to have lapsed.

¶16

Counsel for the LAC relies on paras 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed in support of his submission that the possession of the subject land was taken on 04.04.2006, however, the compensation could not be paid with respect to the said land as the petitioners never turned up to receive the compensation.

¶17

Counsel for the DDA relies on paragraph (e) of the counter affidavit filed in support of his submission that possession of the subject land has been taken on 14.11.2006 and further transferred to the Engineering Wing of the DDA on 14.11.2006 for DDA Scheme.

¶18

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC read as under:

¶20

“4. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the actual vacant physical possession of the subject land falling in khasra numbers 33//13/2(1-14), 33//14(4-16) and 33//17(5-04) total measuring (11-14) was taken on the spot on 4.4.2006 and handed over to the DDA on the spot by preparing possession proceeding on the spot, however the compensation

¶21

W.P. (C) No.7917/2015

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

could not be paid for the said land as the petitioners never turned up to receive the compensation for the land.

¶24

That it is submitted that the lands of village Mubarakpur Dabas were notified vide Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 21.3.2003 which was followed by the Notification under section 6 of the Act dated 19.3.2004. The Award was also passed vide Award No.16/2005-06 dated 14.9.2005 and which acquisition proceedings were apparently never challenged by the petitioner.”

¶25

Paragraph (e) of the counter affidavit filed by the DDA, reads as under:

¶26

“e)...It is stated that the physical possession of the acquired land falling in Khasra No.33//13/1-2(4-12), 14 Min (3-00) and 17 Min (4-18) of Village Mubarakpur Dabas, Delhi handed over to the DDA by the Land Acquisition Collector, through the Land & Building Department, Government of NCT of Delhi on 14.11.2006 and further transferred to Engineering Wing, DDA on 14.11.2006 for DDA Scheme...”

¶27

Although, the consistent stand of the respondent is that the possession of the subject land has been taken, which is disputed by the counsel for the petitioners, but it is clear that the compensation was not tendered to the petitioners. In fact, it is admitted that no notice under Section 12(2) of the 2013 Act was issued to the petitioners. In an additional note provided by the DDA, it is stated that the land in question is to be used for the proposed smart city. There is nothing before us that the subject land has been put to use by the DDA or is likely to be used in the immediate future.

¶28

Having regard to the submissions made and the stand taken by the respondent, it is clear that the compensation has not been tendered to

¶29

W.P. (C) No.7917/2015

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

the petitioners, thus the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with respect to the land of the petitioners as described above are deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.

¶32

No other grounds have been raised by either of the parties.

¶33

The petition stands disposed of.

¶34

G.S.SISTANI, J.

¶35

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J

¶36

FEBRUARY 15, 2018 pst /

¶37

W.P. (C) No.7917/2015

¶38

Page 4 of 4

Hukum Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hukum Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & 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

Pankaj Jain Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Naya Samaj Appejay Parents Association and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Pradeep Chander Vs Indraprastha Power Gen. Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Rakesh Choubey Vs Election Commission of India & Anr.

Balwant Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mahendar Singh Vs Government of NCT of Delhi through the Secretary and Anr.

M/S Impressions Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Virender Kumar

Neeraj Pant Vs Public Work Department & Ors.

Pankaj Jain Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

National Hawkers Federation Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

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

Rita Marwah Vs Lt. Governor & Ors.

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