IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Chetan Rana - Appellant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 2573 of 2024 & CM Appls. 10585-10586 of 2024
Decided On : 21-02-2024
Land Acquisition - Government Land - [Khasra No. 12/24, Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi] - [Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 16 and 17(1); Delhi Development Act; Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 41(j)]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an order issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and directions to not disturb their possession of a property claimed to be purchased from a private individual.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the land in question had been acquired by the government, and the petitioner, as an unauthorized occupant, had no legal right to occupy the land. The court dismissed the petition and allowed the petitioner to seek legal remedies against the persons from whom the property was purchased.
Issues: Quashing of DDA order, possession of the property, legality of the petitioner's claim to the property
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once land is acquired by the government and physical possession is taken over, any right of a private person stands extinguished. The court also emphasized that any purchase of public land is non-est in the eyes of the law. Additionally, the court ruled that a trespasser on government land is not entitled to a Show Cause Notice before being removed.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was granted liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies against the persons from whom the property was purchased.
JUDGMENT
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 10586/2024 (For Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2573/2024 & CM APPL. 10585/2024
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 03rd February, 2024 issued by the respondent no.1-Delhi Development Authority ("DDA"). There is further prayer for directions to the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to not harass or disturb the peaceful possession of the property of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of property in question, i.e., Khasra No. 12/24, Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi. He submits that the aforesaid property was purchased by the petitioner by way of General Power of Attorney dated 29th January, 2024, Sale Agreement dated 02nd January, 2024, Affidavit dated 02nd January, 2024, Receipt dated 02nd January, 2024 and Possession Letter dated 02nd January, 2024.
5. It is further the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid property was purchased by the petitioner from one Sh. Priyanshu Jain, who had purchased the same from one Smt. Namita Devi vide General Power of Attorney dated 08th December, 2023, Sale Agreement dated 08th December 2023, Affidavit dated 08th December 2023, Receipt dated 08th December 2023, possession letter dated 08th December 2023 and Will dated 08th December 2023.
6. It is further submitted that the property is secured through Khasra Khatauni and its Register is maintained properly with the appropriate departments.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on 16th February, 2024, respondent no. 4, through its personnel, appeared at the aforesaid private property of the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to surrender the property. Thus, the present petition has been filed on the ground that the respondent-DDA cannot take over the private property of the petitioner.
8. Further, learned counsel for petitioner raises the contention that the notice dated 03rd February, 2024 issued by the DDA is illegal. He submits that no Principles of Natural Justice have been followed and no hearing or Show Cause Notice has been issued to the petitioner before issuance of the aforesaid notice.
9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for DDA, who appears on advance notice, submits that Khasra No. 12/24, Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi has already been acquired by way of Award no. 29/2002-03. She has handed over a copy of the aforesaid acquisition Award to this Court to submit that the aforesaid khasra number, as claimed by the petitioner as his private property, already stands acquired. She has also handed over a copy of Possession Proceedings, i.e., `Kabza Karyawahi' to show that vacant and physical possession of the land in question, had already been taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to DDA. The aforesaid documents, viz., Award No. 29/2002-03 and Kabza Karyawahi, are taken on record.
10. Learned counsel for DDA also submits that since the aforesaid land is an acquired land and is land of the DDA, petitioner has no legal right to occupy the same. She further submits that no notice is required to remove any encroachment from the public land. Therefore, she submits that the contention on behalf of the petitioner in this regard is totally misplaced.
11. She submits that the petitioner being an unauthorized occupant of the public land, has no right to continue in possession of the land in question.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, as well as the documents handed over by learned counsel for the DDA during the course of hearing.
13. At the outset, this Court notes the contention made by learned Standing Counsel for DDA that Khasra No. 12/24, Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi, already stands acquired. Once acquisition of land has taken place and physical possession has already been taken over, there is no question of any private
Premji Ratansey Shah and Others Versus Union of India and Others
Once land is acquired by the government and physical possession is taken over, any right of a private person stands extinguished. Additionally, any purchase of public land is non-est in the eyes of t....
Once land has been acquired, it cannot be restored to tenure- holders/persons interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it is so acquired. Once possession of land has been taken, i....
Point of Law : Amended provisions of Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules does not mandate issuance of any notice upon persons coming in the ambit of the said sub-rule. The petitioner are admittedly i....
Government agencies must meet the same standards as private parties when seeking to condone delays; the safeguarding of public land is paramount in legal proceedings.
Sale deeds executed after the acquisition notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are void, and subsequent purchasers cannot claim title or challenge the acquisition.
The court established that failure to notify landowners and to take possession in accordance with the law invalidates the land acquisition process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Petitioner's representation under Section 48 of the Act of 1894 was rejected by the Respondents and was not maintainable. The Petitioner's....
Unauthorised occupation of public land, rejection of alternative allotment under the Gadgil Assurance Scheme, and lack of right, title, or interest over the land in question.
Compensation must be paid for un-acquired land vested in the Government under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, and restoration of possession cannot be granted.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.