SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Del) 1115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT & YOGESH KHANNA, JJ.
KHAZAN SINGH – Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 9127 of 2015 & CM No.20755 of 2015
Decided On : 11-04-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar Kaushik, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Adv., Mr. Pawan Mathur, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Kumar with Ms. Santwana, Advs.

Non-disbursement of compensation can lead to the lapse of land acquisition proceedings under the relevant legal provisions.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition - Compensation Disbursement - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 9, 10, 24(2) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a co-owner of a land subject to acquisition, claimed that despite acquisition proceedings and an award, compensation for the land was not paid to him. The respondents disputed the petitioner's ownership and compensation disbursement.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the compensation had not been disbursed to the petitioner, and in line with legal provisions, declared that the acquisition of the land had lapsed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Issues: Ownership and compensation disbursement dispute, applicability of legal provisions regarding compensation and land acquisition proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly Sections 4, 6, 9, 10, 24(2), and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, to determine that the acquisition had lapsed due to non-disbursement of compensation.

Final Decision: The writ petition and pending miscellaneous applications were allowed, and a declaration was issued that the acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioner had lapsed under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

JUDGMENT :

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

1. The facts alleged are that the petitioner is co-owner to the extent of his 1/2 share of the 1/4th joint share in Khasra Nos.228/1 (2-16), 229 (4-40), 230/1(2-12), 250 (4-16), 251 (4-16), 252/2 (2-16), 269/1 (2-00), 270 (4-16), the total land admeasuring 28 bighas 16 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Kotla Mahigram, Tehsil Mehruali, Delhi.

2. The said land was sought to be acquired along with large chunk of land admeasuring 625 bighas and 12 biswas of village Kotla Mahigram, Tehsil Mehruali, Delhi. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the old Act) was issued on 06.04.1964 for planned development of Delhi. Thereafter, the declaration under Section 6 (as per the old Act) was published on 07.12.1966. The award bearing No.205/1986-87 of village Kotla Mahigram, Tehsil Mehruali, Delhi was pronounced in the year 1986-87 whereby the aforesaid land belonging to the petitioner was also acquired.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that despite acquisition proceedings which culminated in the award made in the year 1986-87, the compensation in respect of the land, which is subject matter of the present petition, was not paid to the petitioner by the LAC despite various applications, for making payment.

4. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit wherein they alleged that the petitioner has failed to place any documentary proof to demonstrate his ownership/claim over the land in question and has not made the other co-owners as party to the writ petition. However, the petitioner has placed on record Khatoni of 1990-91 as proof of his ownership which is not denied.

5. The following paragraph of the counter affidavit dated 15.03.2016 is relevant:-

“6. That the land in question i.e. Khasra No.228/1 (2-16), 229 (4-4), 230/1(2-12), 250(4-16), 251 (4-16), 252/2 (2-16), 269/1 (2-0), 270 (4-16) ad-measuring 28 bighas 16 biswas (Petitioner is claiming 1/12 share)situated at the revenue estate of village Kotla Maigrain, New Delhi was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 06.04.1964 followed by declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 07.12.1966 for Planned Development of Delhi. In pursuance of said notification, notices under section 9 & 10 as provided under the Act, were issued to the interested persons, inviting the claims from all the interested persons and claims were also filed by the interested persons. The then Land Acquisition Collector passed Award No.205/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 after considering the claims of the claimants. Further, possession of the above mentioned land were taken over on 04.12.1986, 12.12.1996 and 05.03.1997 and handed over to the beneficiary department. That part payment of the compensation was paid to Sh. Balbir Singh s/o Sunehari on 28.02.2006 for Rs.28,728/- and remaining amount was sent in RD as there was some dispute.”

6. As per the counter affidavit, the part compensation has been paid only to a co-owner Balbir Singh s/o Sunehari on 28.06.2006 to the tune of Rs.28,728/- and the remaining amount has been sent in RD as admittedly there was some dispute. The respondent had not disclosed as to if any notice was sent or served upon the petitioner herein or any claim was filed by the petitioner or any amount of compensation has been paid to the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid acquisition.

7. Thus in the circumstances, the Court is the opinion that the relief claimed has to be granted in view of the decision in Pune Municipality Corporation & Anr. V. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:-

“under section 24(2) land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are deemed to have lapsed where award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of 2013 Act and possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not been paid. The legal fiction under section 24 (2) comes into operation as soon as condition





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top