Acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act do not lapse due to non-utilization or changes in public purpose; once land is vested, owners lose rights irrespective of subsequent developments.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. The six petitioners have filed this petition, (i) impugning the undated notice issued by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM)/Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), District South-West, Kapashera, New Delhi, informing the general public that physical possession of land subject matter of Award No.08/2008-09 would be taken on 24th June, 2021, for construction of Urban Extension Road- II (UER-II); and, (ii) for declaring the Award No.08/2008-09 as null and void.

2. It is the case of the petitioners, that (i) the petitioners no.1 to 4 viz. Gurcharan Singh, Kanwaljeet Singh, Surjit Singh and Gurbax Singh are brothers, and since about the year 2000, jointly own built up plot nos.7, 8 and 9 ad-measuring 554 sq.yds. out of Khasra No.625 situated in the revenue estate of village Roshanpura, Tehsil and District Delhi in the area abadi known as Shyam Vihar, Najafgarh, New Delhi; (ii) the petitioner no.5 viz. Tej Pal Singh was the earlier owner of the land aforesaid, whose name was reflected in the Khatoni/revenue records; (iii) the petitioner no.6 viz. Jagbir Singh purchased the land aforesaid from petitioner no.5 and subsequently sold it to the petitioner no.4, who sold 1/4th portions thereof to each of the petitioners no.1 to 3 and retained the remaining 1/4th portion with himself; (iv) the petitioners no.1 to 4 are in joint and continuous possession of the aforesaid 554 sq.yds. of land out of Khasra no.625 of village Roshanpura and have been enjoying the same; (v) the land of village Roshanpura, including the aforesaid land was sought to be acquired for a public purpose viz. construction of a 100 meter road/UER-II, with Notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "1894 Act") having been issued on 7th April, 2006, declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act having been made on 4th April, 2007 and the award under Section 9 of the 1894 Act, being Award no.08/2008-09/SW, having been made in the year 2008; (vi) the actual physical possession of the land acquired was however never taken and compensation with respect thereto not paid; (vii) after the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "2013 Act"), several neighbours of the petitioners approached this Court under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act and obtained orders to the effect that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed, as far as their respective land/properties were concerned; (viii) the areas of Shyam Vihar and Roshanpura are densely inhabited, with concrete constructed houses having proper electricity and water connections; (ix) due to heavy litigation by occupants of the aforesaid land, the respondent no.1 Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation and Ministry for Road, Transport and Highways decided to re-designate the road as a National Highway; (x) after the re-designation of the proposed road as the National Highway, the respondent no.3 National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) re-aligned the road to avoid as much as possible, portions of Shyam Vihar and Roshanpura; (xi) after such re-alignment, the respondent no.3 NHAI initiated its own process for acquisition of the land for construction of National Highway 344M, by issuing Notification dated 29th November, 2018 under Section 3A of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "1956 Act") and by making award under Section 3G of the 1956 Act on 25th September,