SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 11219

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MANMOHAN, A, C, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
SHAILENDRA – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR (LM) (SOUTH ZONE-II) – Respondent
W.P.(C) 4505/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Girish K. Sharma
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran, Mr. Mayank Arora, Mr. M.S. Akhtar, Ms. Nidhi Thakur, Mr. Ashim Vachher, Mr. Kunal Lakra, Mr. Vaibhav Dabas, Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Mr. Bharat Arora, Mr. Gaurav Arora, Ms. Smita Maan, Mr. Kshitiz Agnihotri

The court upheld the DDA's right to possess land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, affirming the finality of the Supreme Court's judgment.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, and 48 - Modification of possession order - The Delhi High Court modified its previous order to direct the Land Acquisition Collector to hand over possession of specified Khasra numbers to the DDA, highlighting the Supreme Court's judgment affirming the DDA's entitlement to the land. (Paras 9, 17)

(B) Legal Principles - The court emphasized that possession must be in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling, establishing that the applicant's continued possession after the judgment was illegal. (Paras 16, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought possession of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, asserting illegal occupation by private individuals, while DDA claimed rightful possession based on a Supreme Court judgment.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the DDA's right to possess the land as per the Supreme Court's ruling, dismissing the applicant's claims to remain in possession.

Issues: The main issues were the legality of the applicant's possession after the Supreme Court's decision and whether the modification of the possession order was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Supreme Court's judgment had attained finality, rendering any claim to continued possession by the applicant invalid and emphasizing the need for compliance with the Supreme Court's directives.

Result: Applications seeking recall and/or stay of the order were dismissed.

JUDGEMENT

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL) C.M.No.20987/2024

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

C.M.No.20986/2024

3. Present application has been filed on behalf of respondent-DDA under Section 151 CPC, 1908 seeking modification of order dated 27th March, 2024 to the extent that Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) may be directed to hand over possession of land comprising Khasra Nos. 1883(4-16), 1884(4-

16) and 1885(4-16) situated at Village Chhatarpur, New Delhi free from all encumbrances to the Respondent-DDA on 09th April, 2024, instead of only two Khasra numbers which have been directed to be handed over by this Court vide order dated 27th March, 2024. The respondent-DDA also seeks modification of the order to the extent that the directions for an enquiry to be carried out by Commissioner, Land Management (LM) against the Deputy Director be withdrawn.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent-DDA states that the possession of the land pertaining to Khasra No. 1885 (4-16) of Village Chhatarpur, New Delhi had been handed over to DDA through Land & Building Department on 31st December, 2013 despite a stay granted by this Court in favour of respondent no.3 in W.P.(C) 1786/1999. He states that consequently, a contempt petition being Contempt Case (C) No.688 of 2014 was filed on 25th November, 2014 and the said contempt case was subsequently disposed of by this Court as the DDA had purged the contempt petition by returning possession of Khasra No.1885 (4-16) to the petitioner in the said petition.

5. He states that in respect to the reply to RTI application dated 18th August, 2023 (wherein it was stated that physical possession of Khasra No. 1885 (4-16) was handed over to DDA on 31st December, 2013) was issued by the NL-II branch of LM Department which maintains the land records of DDA. He states that the said branch however does not have the requisite records of litigation and the said branch has given the reply of RTI application on the basis of its record which was incomplete. He states that the letters dated 04th January, 2024 and 22nd March, 2024 were issued by the Deputy Director of concerned Land Management zone i.e. LM South Zone- II which has all the relevant records of land and litigation pertaining to the land in question.

6. In view of the above, present application is allowed and the order dated 27th Mach, 2024 is modified to the extent that the LAC will hand over possession of land comprising Khasra Nos. 1883(4-16), 1884(4-16) and 1885(4-16) situated at Village Chhatarpur, New Delhi free from all encumbrances to the respondent-DDA on 09th April, 2024, instead of only two Khasra numbers which had been directed to be handed over by this Court vide order dated 27th March, 2024. Further the direction issued vide order dated 27th March, 2024 directing an enquiry to be carried out by the Commissioner, LM against the Deputy Director is withdrawn. Accordingly, the order dated 27th March, 2024 shall now read as under:-

  • + W.P.(C) 4505/2024 SHAILENDRA ..... Petitioner Through:
  • Mr.Girish K.Sharma, Advocate. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR (LM) (SOUTH ZONE-II) & ANR.
  • Mr.Ashim Vachher, standing counsel for DDA with Mr.Kunal Lakra, Advocate.
  • Mr.Sanjay Kumar Patnaik, standing counsel for LAC/L&B/GNCTD with Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr.M.S.Akhtar, Ms.Nidhi Thakur, Ms.Mussarrat Benezeer and Mr.Mayank Arora, Advocates.
  • CORAM:
  • HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 27.03.2024

1. Present public interest petition has been filed seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to take physical possession of the property bearing Khasra nos.1883 (4-16), 1884 (4-16), 1885 (4-16) at Village Chattarpur, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject property’).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that subject property was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’),

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top