The mandatory nature of compensation payment under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013.

G.S. Sistani, J.

1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land measuring 200 square yards bearing Khasra no.272, House no.151, Village Jasola, District South, New Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner that the compensation of the land acquired has not been paid though possession of the land in question has been taken and also put to use. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of this, prays for compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013.

2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 06.04.1964. A declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 07.12.1966. An award in respect of land of village Jasola was made by the Land Acquisition Collector vide award no.4/97-98 (suppl.) on 05.12.1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of the Court that on 24.11.1998 the petitioner challenged the said award by filing a Writ Petition (Civil) No.4044/1998 for acquiring and setting aside the award and for restraining the respondent authorities from dispossessing the petitioner from the property in question and from carrying out demolition. A copy of the order dated 26.11.2002 has been placed on record wherein it has been held that the acquisition proceedings qua award no.04/97-98 are non est and non-operative qua the property of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a subsequent Writ Petition (Civil) No.13766/2009 praying that the DDA be restrained from interfering with his peaceful possession of land measuring 200 square yards falling in Khasra no.272, House no.151, Village Jasola, Delhi. A contempt petition was also filed. In the meanwhile, a Review Petition bearing no.180/2011 was filed by the DDA. The review petition was allowed vide an order dated 03.05.2012. The order passed in the review petition was challenged by the petitioner herein before the Supreme Court of India. The SLP was, however, dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the hearing of the writ petition, contempt petition and review petition before the Supreme Court, at no stage any objection was raised with regard to the locus standi of the petitioner which is now being raised by counsel for the respondents. Counsel submits that even otherwise the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and another, 2017 (6) SCC 751. Para 28 of this judgment reads as under :-

“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 declaration, it cannot be said that the respondent-writ petitioners do not have any locus standi.”

3. Besides raising an objection with regard to the locus standi, counsel for Land Acquisition Collector relies on para 7 of the counter affidavit and submits that the petitioner would only be entitled to compensation. Relevant portion of para 7 of the counter affidavit reads as under:

“7. That in the present case, possession of 1 bigha and 9 biswa was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department on 06.08.2009 and subsequently on 23.11.2012 for 4 biswa of land in khasra no.272 and as per Naksha Mutzamin compensation has not been paid to the recorded owners. It is further submitted that the petitioner is neither the recorded owner nor has placed on record any document to that the land has been purchased from the recorded owner. Moreover, the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser