Disposing a writ petition challenging land acquisition under the 2013 Act, the Court held the petition lacks merit as compensation was paid to recorded owners and possession was lawfully taken in 1987, distinguishing Manav Dharma Trust.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgement: 1st March, 2018
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Adv. for LAC/L&B Deptt. Mr. Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel for DDA. Ms. Meera Bhatia, Adv. For Union of India.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
W.P.(C) 9436/2016
Page 1 of 5
physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor the compensation has been paid to the petitioner.
“28. Thus, the subsequent purchaser, the assignee, the successor in interest, the power-of-attorney holder, etc., are all persons who are interested in compensation/landowners/ affected persons in terms of the 2013 Act and such 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
W.P.(C) 9436/2016
Page 2 of 5
declaration, it cannot be said that the respondent-writ petitioners do not have any locus standi.”
"8. That in the present case, the possession of the land in question was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department on 16.07.1987 and as per Statement "A" compensation was paid to the recorded owners as under :-
| NAME | AMOUNT | REMARKS |
|---|---|---|
| Bhim Singh | 455225.00 | Paid vide Cheque No. 81084dt.10.09.97 |
| Hukam Chand | 151741.68 | Paid vide Cheque No. 81019dt. 31.08.87 |
| Man Singh | 151741.69 | Paid vide Cheque No. 81020 dt. 31.08.87 |
| Mehar Singh | 151741.69 | Paid vide Cheque dated 03.08.87 |
"I say that the possession of the acquired land has been handed over by the LAC to the DDA on 16.07.1987 and the copy of the Possession Report is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE R3-1. "
W.P.(C) 9436/2016
Page 3 of 5
W.P.(C) 9436/2016
Page 4 of 5
physical possession has been taken on 16.07.1987 and compensation has been paid to the recorded owner in the year 1987 on various dates as detailed in para 5 above. In case the physical possession had been taken and compensation having not been paid at all, in those circumstances, the decision rendered in the case of Manav Dharma Trust (supra) would come to the aid and rescue of the petitioner, which is not the facts of the present case.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
MARCH 1, 2018//gr
W.P.(C) 9436/2016
Page 5 of 5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation and non-taken possession.
Whether a subsequent purchaser has locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
Whether belated objection to possession taken from recorded owners is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and anotherDistinguished¶16
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and another, 2017 (6) SCC 751 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vivek Chandra Pandey
Union of India & Ors.
G.S. Sistani
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
