The main legal point established in the judgment is the separate and distinct rights of co-owners in land acquisition proceedings and their entitlement to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

G.S. Sistani, J.

1. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2. The petitioners have filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the land comprised in Khasra nos.453 min. (1-2), 454 (4-16), 459 (5-18), 460 (4-16), 461 (4-16), 462 (3-14) total measuring 25 bighas and 2 biswas out of which, the petitioners are recorded co-owners of 8 bighas and 3 biswas, situated in revenue estate of village Sayoorpur, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the “subject land”) stand lapsed on account of the fact that compensation has not been paid to the petitioners.

3. At the outset, Mr. Maan clarifies that with respect to the remaining land belonging to other co-owners, compensation has been paid and possession taken over by the respondents. He submits that in this case a notification under section 4 was issued on 25.11.1980 and another notification under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Old Act”) was issued in the year 1985 and award was made on 14.05.1987. It is the case of the petitioners that the present petitioners continue to remain in actual physical possession of the land in question and moreover, compensation has not been tendered to the petitioners.

4. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for LAC does not dispute that compensation has not been tendered to the petitioners. It is vehemently submitted that other co-owners have already received the compensation and possession with respect to the land belonging to other co-owners has been taken over. Mr. Panda, relying on the proviso of section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “New Act”), contends that since majority of co-owners have received the compensation, the petitioners” claim is liable to be restricted only to payment of compensation and the declaration being sought is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel further submits that in the cases of (i) Suraj Singh & Anr. v. The Hon. Lt. Governor of Delhi, W.P. (C) 6395 of 2014 decided on 02.05.2017 and (ii) Satbir Singh & Ors. v. The Hon. Lt. Governor and Ors., W.P. (C) 5076 of 2014 decided on 16.08.2017, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court have granted a limited relief to the writ petitioners restricting their claim only to the payment of compensation under the Old Act. Learned counsel submits that single claim was filed by all co-owners, thus, no benefit can accrue in their favour.

5. Mr. Maan submits that the judgments sought to be relied upon would not apply to the fact of the present case. It is firstly contended that case of each of the co-owners in this case has been considered by the LAC separately, the objections were filed separately, the objections were decided separately and compensation was assessed separately and paid separately. He contends that it is evident from the fact that even as per Land Acquisition Collector, separate payments have been made to separate co-owners and admittedly present petitioners have not been paid compensation. Learned counsel relies on the observations made in the case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by L.Rs. and others vs. Pramod Gupta (Smt.) (Dead) by L.Rs. and Others, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 272. Paras 25 and 31 of its judgment read as under :-

25. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side. The consideration by the High Court seems to be too superficial on the basis of certain abstract principles without particular reference to the nature and character of the proceedings, the nature of claims and rights of parties, the statutory obligations cast on the courts dealing with a reference under Sections 30/31 originating from an award under Section 11 of the Act and the source as well as origin of rights of the claimants. The Land Acquisition Collector empowered under the Act to pass the a