The court emphasized the importance of evidence in establishing ownership and possession in land acquisition cases, and the completion of acquisition proceedings as per the provisions of the Act.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land Admeasuring 900 sq. yards out of Khasra No. l etc./99 (3-13) now known as Property No.C-115, Gali No.4, Shastri Park, Delhi-110053 in Village Ghonda Chauhan Khadar, Delhi-110053 has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the said piece of land having purchased the same from its earlier owners. It is contended that the petitioner has raised a nursery/garden at the said premises. It is contended that the petitioner continues to be in physical possession of the land. However, in the year 2013, the respondent through its officials and employees threatened to dispossess the petitioner. The petitioner made an RTI enquiry in response to which it was contended that the physical possession of the subject land was taken over by the land acquiring authorities and handed over to PWD for construction of a road on 16.08.1983. It is contended that the petitioner purchased the subject land by a registered sale deed dated 26th December, 2013. In support of his contention that he is owner of the property, the petitioner has placed on record irrevocable general power of attorney, “deed of will” and possession letter dated 04.01.2006 and sale deed dated 26.12.2013 executed on the basis of the power of attorney and rectification deed dated 28.06.2014.

3. The respondent/LAC has filed a short counter affidavit contending that the recorded owner of the subject land was one Sh. Umrao Singh S/o Dharam Singh whereas the documents of title filed by the petitioner are from Mumtaz Ahmed and Ruksana Begum and it is not shown as to how the said Mumtaz Ahmed and Ruksana Begum are concerned with the subject land and entitled to execute the power of attorney etc. It is contended that the Land Acquisition Collector took physical possession of the land on 27.06.1969 and handed over the same to the requisitioning agency and due compensation was also paid to its recorded owner namely; Shri Umrao Singh and as the compensation was paid to the recorded owner and possession was taken way back in 1969, the acquisition proceedings stood completed and the subsequent purchase by the petitioner would be of no consequence.

4. The respondent/DDA has filed its counter affidavit contending that the subject land was transferred to PWD (Road) on 16.08.1983 for the purposes of construction of a road and the work of road has already been completed by the PWD and the subject land has been bounded with the boundary wall of the DDA and the petitioner had sought to grab the land of the respondents. It is contended that the plea of the petitioner that he has raised a nursery/garden on the subject land is sham, bogus and frivolous, and it is contended that there is no garden/nursery existing on the subject land and the subject land is enclosed within the boundary wall of DDA. It is contended that the acquisition proceedings of the subject land have become final, binding and conclusive and cannot now be reopened.

5. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is owner of the property by virtue of the documents, which have been placed on record dated 04.01.2006 and 26.12.2013, and the petitioner is in physical possession of the said land and is running a nursery there from.

6. The stand of the respondents is that the subject land was acquired by a notification of 1969 and possession was also taken of the subject land in 1969 and was transferred to PWD (Road) in the year 1983 for the purposes of construction of a road and thereafter road work has been carried out and today the premises is enclosed within a boundary wall of DDA and there is no nursery on the subject land and that the petitioner had