HARI PRAKASH & ORS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Hari Prakash And Ors
Union of India And Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
G. S. Sistani, J. -
(1.)With the consent of the parties, present petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra no. 166/2 measuring 3 Bighas and 18 Biswas, Khasra No. 23/2 measuring 1 Bigha and 4 Biswas, Khasra No. 24 measuring 4 Bighas 00 Biswas, Khasra No. 165/2 measuring 1 Bigha and Khasra No. 165/1 measuring 16 Biswas wrongly typed in the writ petition as 3 Bighas and 16 Biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village-Aali, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'subject land'), are deemed to have lapsed as compensation has not been tendered to the petitioners. At the outset, counsel for the petitioners submits that the possession of the land has been taken and put to use by the DMRC, thus he restricts his prayer only for compensation in terms of Section 24(1) (b) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (New Act)
(2.)The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 6th April, 1964, Section 6 declaration was made on 22nd December, 1966 and thereafter Award bearing No. 03/97-98/Suppl. was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 10th December, 1997. As per the writ petition, petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of Late Sh. Mangat Ram, whereas petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of Late Sh. Basant Kumar, son of Late Sh. Mangat Ram. The petitioners claim their interest in the property based on a Will, copy whereof has been placed on record. Reliance is also placed on Khasra Girdawari, copy of which has also been placed on record, which reflects the name of Late Sh. Mangat Ram as the recorded owner. Counsel for the petitioners submits as the compensation has not been paid, the case of the petitioners is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. V. Harak Chand Misirimal Solanki & Ors, 2014 3 SCC 183 and other decisions as detailed below to submit that the acquisition proceedings would lapse:
(1) Union of India and Ors v. Sshiv Raj and Ors., 2014 6 SCC 564;
(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, Civil Appeal no.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;
(3) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others, W.P.(C).2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(4) Giri Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors; W.P.(C).2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
(3.)We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.