The main legal point established in the judgment is that non-payment of compensation to the owners can lead to the lapse of land acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The dispute is qua the land comprising of 1 bigha 0 biswa and 8 biswani, forming part of khasra no. 701/486/232(5-02) situated in revenue estate of Village Jasola, New Delhi. The land is recorded in the names of Jeet Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Bhim Singh, Jai Singh all sons of Hardhyan Singh and also in the name of Ishwar Singh son of Ganpat and Late Smt. Jwala Devi. Now that Sukhdev Singh, Bhim Singh, Jai Singh and Smt. Jwala Devi have since expired, hence the petitioners No. 1 to 12 and the respondents No. 4 to 9 claim to be the owners of the aforesaid land.

2. It is alleged that the subject land is part of a colony known as Jasola village which is under consideration of the authorities for regularization under the policy Regularization of Unauthorised Colony. It is alleged that the physical possession of the land is with the petitioners.

3. It is stated that the subject land along with the adjoining lands was sought to be acquired vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued on 06.04.1964 for a public purpose namely the planned development of Delhi. On 07.12.1966 a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made and on 19.09.1986 award No. 6D/Supl./ 86-87 was made in respect of the village Jasola.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that neither the physical possession of the land was taken from them nor they have been paid or offered any compensation in respect thereof. Hence it is argued that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act be declared to have been lapsed. The petitioners have filed khatoni in the name of their predecessors, of the years 1982-83 and 1996-97 to claim ownership.

5. The counter affidavit dated 21.03.2016 of the Land Acquisition Collector (SE), New Delhi states as under:

“6. That the land in question i.e. Khasra No. 701/486/232 (05-02) situated at the revenue estate of village Jasola, New Delhi was notified under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act on 06.04.1964 followed by declaration under section 6 of 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. 6D/Supl./86-87 dated 19.09.1986 after considering the claims of the claimants.

7. That in the present case, possession of the above said land was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department on 19.08.1997. However, as per the records compensation was sent to RD. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have not placed on record any document to show their title.”

6. Further the Director, Land Management, DDA, New Delhi in his counter affidavit dated 12.02.2016 has stated:

“It is submitted that the possession of the land in question having been taken over in accordance with law, the acquisition is complete and the land vests in the government free from any encumbrance which includes any right of the prior owners who if continue to be in possession or encroach thereafter, as alleged by Petitioner in the present case, having no right therein and enjoy the possession only as trustee on behalf of the public at large. Further, the proviso inserted through an 2014 Ordinance amending the 2013 Act provides that in case the amount of compensation is lying deposited in a court or any account maintained for this purpose, where the possession has been taken, as in the present case, such period shall be excluded while computing the relevant period. Therefore, the acquisition does not lapse.”

7. The respondents have raised two issues viz. (a) the possession of the land has since been taken and now it vests with the appropriate Government and (b) the amount of compensation stood paid as is lying in RD.

8. Though the petitioner’s contend that the possession is still with them but t