The court clarified that under the Land Acquisition Act, only one award is envisaged, and no Supplementary Award is contemplated. It emphasized that any grievance regarding non-determination of compensation for any structure or crop must be addressed by seeking a Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act within the prescribed period.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.

1. A Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 09.02.2017 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, South West/Respondent No.1 whereby the Reference Petition filed by the petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was rejected as time barred. Consequently, it is further prayed for issuing appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of mandamus, directing the Land Acquisition Collector, South West to refer the Reference Petition filed by the petitioners on 08.09.2015 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the concerned Civil Court for adjudication, in accordance with law.

2. In brief, as per the case of the petitioners, they are the recorded co-owners of large chunk of land comprising Khasra No.59/1 (4-08), 2/1 min. (2-16), 9 min (4-12), 10 (4-16), 11 (4-04), 12 (3-00) and 59/9 min. (0-04) total admeasuring 24 bighas situated in the revenue estate of Village Dhool Siras, New Delhi wherein the petitioners are having 1/3rd share each respectively being the LRs of Shri Gyani Ram. In the above-mentioned land, the petitioners claim to have developed a farm house with compound wall, kothi, two temples, shed, platform, tubewell and main gate in the land of Khasra No.59/9 min. (0-04) and 10.

3. It is further the case of the petitioners that on 13.12.2000, the Govt. of NCT of Delhi issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") in respect of total land measuring 3133 bighas 17 biswas situated in revenue estate of Dhool Siras which included the land of the petitioners. Further, on 07.12.2001, the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was issued followed with notification under section 17(1) on 15.03.2002. The possession of a portion of land admeasuring 23 bighas and 16 biswas was taken on 20.08.2002 after invoking the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act. However, the possession of Khasra No.59/9 min. (0-04) was not taken by respondent No.1 due to existence of structure/construction in the nature of build up house etc.

Thereafter, an award No.27/2002-03 was passed by respondent No.1/Land Acquisition Collector on 24.10.2002. The compensation in respect of the tubewell and other structure over the acquired land was not assessed/determined by the LAC since the valuation report was yet to be submitted by the PWD. Accordingly, it was observed in the aforesaid award that the compensation for the same would be assessed/determined later on.

4. The possession of Khasra No.59/9 min (0-04) is stated to have been taken by the respondents only on 29.11.2005. Further, in accordance with the directions, the PWD submitted the valuation report in respect of all the structures and a Supplementary Award No.27A/2007-08 was passed by the LAC on 05.12.2008 which included the compensation in respect of tubewell, pump house and boring of the petitioners for a sum of Rs.1,56,516/-.

The grievance of the petitioners is that despite receipt of the valuation report from PWD in respect of other structures i.e. farm house, building, wall gate etc., the LAC did not award any compensation qua the same and neither included in the Supplementary Award. Consequently, a request was made by the petitioners to the LAC to pass another award over the left over structures on 18.01.2013 in writing. However, no action was taken thereupon by the LAC. Left with no other option, the petitioners approached the High Court of Delhi by filing Writ Petition {WP(C) No.3037/2013} which was disposed of vide order dated 10.05.2013 directing the LAC to examine the claim of the petitioners in the light of the valuation report and pass an appropriate order on the application dated 18.01.2013 filed by the petitioners within a period of four weeks.

5. Petitioners further claim that the LAC/respondent No.1 failed to comply with the directions issued by High Court of