Important Point – Petitioner is not entitled to any relief when his standing is suspect.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The petitioner sought the quashing of acquisition proceedings initiated through the notification dated 27.10.1999 under Section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereafter referred to variously as “the 1894 Act” or “the old Act”]. These proceedings were filed on 29.05.2013 when the old Act was in force. With the subsequent repeal of that enactment and the bringing into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the 2013 Act” hereafter) with effect from 01.01.2014, amendments to the petition were sought and granted; the fresh claim in the amended proceedings is for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land measuring 1278 square yards in Khasra No. 62/19/1 situated in the revenue estate of Village Pehladpur Bangar [hereafter referred to as “the suit property”] has lapsed.

2. The present proceedings were initiated in the name of Sh. Shiv Charan through one Sh. Ashok Kumar Sehgal, who claims to be his Power of Attorney (PoA) holder. This PoA is based upon a registered document executed on 04.03.1994 by Shiv Charan in respect of the suit lands. Shiv Charan, in turn, claims to be the purchaser of the said suit lands from the original owners – Kaptan, Parmeshwari Devi, Shyam Dutt, Sudhir, Asarfi and Sukhdei. Some of the original vendees were children of Jai Narain and some others were children of other co-sharers. The suit property was part of a larger tract of land, sought to be acquired for the public purpose of development of the Rohini Residential Scheme formulated by the Delhi Development Authority (“DDA” hereafter).

3. Claiming urgency, the hearing to land owners under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act was dispensed with by the initial notification. Dispensing with the hearing became the subject matter of writ proceedings that ultimately culminated in the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3813/2007 [Ram Dhari Jindal v. UOI and Ors.]. The petitioner had alleged that the Supreme Court’s order dated 21.03.2012, no doubt, granted liberty to issue declaration under Section 6 but contends that having regard to the facts of the case the declaration issued was beyond the time permitted.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that even though in the present case, the Award dated 08.07.2002 was published, while assessing the suit lands to compensation, the benefit of the Supreme Court judgment had to be extended; more specifically in the amended proceedings, it is contended that the possession was never taken in accordance with law nor was compensation tendered to the original owners or the petitioner. Therefore, the petition claims that in terms of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, the acquisition in respect of the suit lands lapsed.

5. Sh. Neeraj. K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew attention of the Court to the pleadings and urged that the objection by the respondent to the maintainability of this proceedings are without merit. He relied upon the decision in Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agarwal 2011 (5) SCC 394. He also submitted that while taking physical possession of the acquired land no proper procedure was followed by the authorities concerned by way of giving prior notice to the landowner/farmers, whose structures exist over the acquired land or in any case standing crops etc. by way of preparing proper Panchname in the presence of witnesses and the landholders. Such procedure is contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agarwal 2011 (5) SCC 394, Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2012 (1) SCC 792 and Patasi Devi v. State of Haryana and Others 2012 (9) SCC 503. It is submitted that the so called taking of possession is belied by the fact that actual possession still continues to be with the petitioner. It is therefore argued that consequent v