The mandatory nature of the provision in Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act regarding the deposit of compensation in court, and the interpretation of the term 'paid' in Section 24(2) of the New Act to include the deposit of compensation in court, as per the Supreme Court's interpretation in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors.

G.S.SISTANI, J

1. At the outset, counsel for the LAC submits that since the name of the parties are identical, the counter-affidavit of W.P.(C) 12173/2015 has been filed in W.P.(C) 12176/2015 and vice versa. Office shall place the correct counter-affidavit in the files of the respective writ petitions.

2. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No.281/4 (10-11), 282/4 (10-3) and 80(2-8) total area measuring 23 Bighas and 2 biswas having 1/12th share measuring 01 bigha and 19 biswas and 03 biswasi situated in the revenue estate of village Ghari Mandu, Shahdara, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’) is deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (New Act), as the compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner.

3. Necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that the father of the petitioner Late Sh. Brahm Singh was the son of Late Sh. Harkesh, grandfather of the petitioner. Late Sh. Harkesh was the recorded owner of the agricultural land forming part of Khasra No.281/4 (10-11), 282/4 (10-3) and 80 (2-8) total area measuring 23 Bighas and 2 biswas having 1/12th share measuring 01 bigha and 19 biswas and 03 biswasi situated in the revenue estate of village Ghari Mandu, Shahdara, Delhi. A copy of the Khata Khatoni wherein name of Sh. Harkesh has been mentioned has been placed on record. A Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was issued on 23.06.1989, a Section 6 notification of the Act was issued on 20.06.1990 and an award bearing no. 13/1992-93 was passed on 19.06.1992.

4. Although, it is the case of the petitioner that physical possession of the land has not been taken, during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would only seek compensation in terms of Section 24 (2) of the New Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on the decision rendered in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. V. Harak Chand Misiri Mal Solanki & Ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183, submits that the petitioner is entitled to a declaration qua 1/12th share of the subject land that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioner stand lapsed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/LAC has drawn the attention of the Court to Paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit. Counsel submits that the petitioner is not entitled to compensation as the land is vested with the Gaon Sabha. Counsel however admits that the compensation has not been tendered. Counsel for the DDA submits that the possession of the land has been taken and handed over to the Forest Department to be used for Green Belt, agriculture and water body as the land falls in ‘O’ Zone.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Para 4, 6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent/LAC reads as under:

“4. That the present writ petition is further liable to be dismissed as the petitioners have not placed on record any document showing therein their entitlement over the subject land as they are not the recorded owners in the revenue records thus the petitioners are not entitled to any relief before the Hon’ble Court under the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is claiming to be one of the successors of Late Sh. Harkesh who was having bhoomidari rights, however no Surviving Membership Certificate has been filed along with the writ petition. It is submitted that under the bhoomidari rights, the land remained under the ownership of Gaon Sabha as such in the present case as well, the recorded owner of the land is Gaon Sabha which has not been made as a necessary party in the present writ petition.

6. That it