Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 5077
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Ramanand – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2314 of 2014
Decided On : 26-05-2023
Mr. Ashutosh Dubey with Ms. Rajshri, Mr. Amit P. Shahi, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing counsel with Mr. Sunil Kumar Pathak, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Mr. Ravi Violet Tigga, Ms. Nidhi Thakur and Mr. Peeyush Pathak, Advocates, for the Respondent No.1 and 2.
Ms. S. Janani, Advocate, for the Respondent/DSIDC.
The court emphasized the importance of demarcation to resolve possession disputes and upheld the petitioner's right to seek return of excess land or compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Possession Dispute - The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, Section 17(1)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's land was partially acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the respondent DSIIDC took possession of the un-acquired portion. The petitioner sought demarcation and return of the land or compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the concerned revenue authorities to carry out demarcation to ascertain the acquired portion and the un-acquired 8 biswa of land. The petitioner was to be associated in the demarcation process. If excess land was found to be taken, the DSIIDC was directed to return it to the petitioner or initiate proceedings for acquiring the remaining land.
Issues: Possession dispute, delay in filing the writ petition, rightful ownership of the un-acquired land, compensation for excess land taken by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: Demarcation to ascertain the acquired and un-acquired land, association of the petitioner in the demarcation process, obligation of the respondent to return excess land or initiate acquisition proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for demarcation and potential return of excess land or initiation of acquisition proceedings by the respondent.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)--By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that his land measuring 8 Biswa in Khasra No. 45/18 situated in the Revenue Estate of Holambi Khurd, Delhi, which has not been acquired by the respondent, be handed over back to the petitioner, as the same has wrongly been utilised by the respondent, Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIIDC).
2. It is the case of the petitioner, that the petitioner was recorded bhumidar/owner and in possession of land against Khata khatauni No.86/67 Min against Khasra No. 46/19 (3-12) and against Khata khatauni No. 182/143 comprising Khasra Nos.45/14 (4-9), 15(4-16), 16(2-4), 17(1-15), 18(1-18) 46/11(4-16), 12(4-16), 20(3-2), measuring 31 bighas 8 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Holambi Khurd, Delhi.
3. Subsequently, the land of the petitioner measuring 27 bigha 16 biswa was notified for acquisition under Section 4 and 17(1) of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vide notification dated 15.11.1996. Subsequently, Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued vide notification dated 21.11.1996. Subsequently, vide Award No. 4/98-99 announced on 20.11.1998, the aforesaid land of the petitioner was acquired.
4. Subsequently in terms of the aforesaid Award dated 20.11.1998 government took the possession of the acquired land on 18.08.1998. Thereafter, compensation was also received by the petitioner for acquisition of his land measuring 27 bigha 16 biswa on 02.12.1998.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner owned land measuring 1 bigha 18 biswa in khasra No. 45/18, in village Holambi Khurd. However, land measuring only 1 bigha 10 biswa was acquired from Khasra No.45/18. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Khatauni for the year 1986-87 which shows that petitioner owned 1 bigha 18 biswa in Khasra No.45/18.
6. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to payment certificate dated 20.02.2014 issued by the office of the Land Acquisition Collector, which shows that compensation was paid to the petitioner for land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswa in Khasra No.45/18.
7. The court has also perused the Award dated 19.11.1998, which shows that land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswa was acquired in Khasra No. 45/18. Thus, the fact remains undisputed that out of 1 bigha 18 biswa owned by the petitioner in Khasra No.45/18, land measuring only 1 bigha 10 biswa was acquired and that land to the extent of 8 biswa remained un-acquired.
8. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid land measuring 8 biswa in Khasra No.45/18 is a vacant land, which continued to lie as vacant land. Subsequently, the petitioner noticed in September 2013 that the respondent DSIIDC had taken physical possession of the un-acquired 8 biswa land of the petitioner also out of Khasra No.45/18, by construction of a boundary wall. The petitioner made various visits to the Land Acquisition Collector as well as to the DSIIDC and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against the action of taking possession of 8 biswa land of petitioner in Khasra No.45/18, which was neither notified for acquisition, nor any compensation was paid to the petitioner for the same. Subsequently, petitioner issued a legal notice dated 26.11.2013 and thereafter, the present writ petition was filed in the year 2014.
9. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the possession of the petitioner's land to the extent of 8 biswa in Khasra No.45/18 has wrongly been taken by the DSIIDC. Thus, he prays that demarcation of the land be carried out, so that after demarcation, either the said land measuring 8 biswa wrongly taken by the DSIIDC, is returned to the petitioner or the said land is acquired.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ld. Standing Counsel for respondent Land & Building Department submits that the acquisition in the present case was undertaken by the department way
