Delhi High Court
Smt. Rani Devi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 May, 2006
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar, S.L. Bhayana
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction to the respondents to release the land of the petitioner from acquisition or pay the compensation for the acquired land. The necessary facts are that the petitioner was Bhumidar/Recorded owner of the Khasra No. 201 measuring one bigha, situated in the revenue estate of village Shahbad, Daulatpur, New Delhi. In order to substantiate her claim she has annexed to the writ petition copy of the Fard Khatoni as Annexure P1. The Government had issued notifications under Section 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act on 28.4.95. As the urgency provisions had been invoked the authorities issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 26.4.96. Vide these notifications large tracts of land measuring about 1852 bighas 06 biswas was sought to be acquired, however, land measuring 176 bighas 03 biswas had been denitrified vide notification dated 6.9.96. Part of the land was under the stay order passed by the Court in Civil Writ No. 3938/97. The land of the petitioner was also part of this large acquisition.
2. The Collector made the award determining the compensation payable to the claimant on 24.4.98 being Award No. 1/98-99. According to the award, the claimant was entitled to compensation of nearly Rs. 8 lacs. According to the claimant, the possession of the land was taken, however, the compensation was not paid to her. The claimant, thus, issued a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 24.11.05 calling upon the respondents to pay the compensation of the acquired land. Having failed to receive the payment, the claimant/petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the above reliefs. A short affidavit on behalf of the respondent was filed wherein it was stated that the land of the petitioner was under Khasra No. 201 measuring about 17.7 bighas. The possession of the land were taken on various occasions i.e. on 13.1.97, 7.12.99 and 17.11.2000 and possession was handed over to DDA. It is further stated that possession of land measuring about 10.10 bighas was also taken by the authority and handed over to DDA on 16.12.98. It is stated that the department had announced 18 awards covering the land measuring about 5,000 bighas and the compensation has been disbursed to the persons who have furnished the requisite documents.
3. On enquiry it was found that there exist an unauthorized colony, namely, Gupta Colony, Prahlad Vihar on the land in question. The occupants were occupying small holdingd ranging from 20 to 50 square yards on the basis of some agreements/General Power of Attorneys executed by the owners of the land. The petitioner was not in possession of the land at the time of passing of the award. It is disputed that he, however, surrendered the possession and, in fact, the possession was taken on 2.5.06 after causing demolitions. In these circumstances, it is stated that the writ petition needs to be dismissed. In the present case, the award was made in the year 98-99 and admittedly the payment of awarded compensation has not been disbursed to the claimant. The claimant is the recorded Bhumidar but these are the subsequent events which have created certain impediments in disbursement of this compensation. The liability to pay the compensation to the claimant would arise when they have taken the possession of the land. In the present case the possession of the property in question has been taken on 2.5.06. Thus, from the date of taking of possession there appears to be no inordinate delay in disbursement of the compensation.
4. In Paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner himself has stated that the respondents have not taken possession and, therefore, the payment was not released. Even in his legal notice dated 24.11.05 similar stand has been taken. There is not even an averment in the entire writ petition as to why the petitioner took no steps for a long period of 1998 to 2005 for getting the awarded compensation. In the light of this unnatural conduct of the petitioner, the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents appears to have merit, that is to say, the petitioner was probably not in possession of the property and there was unauthorized construction raised which now has been demolished by the respondents and they have taken possession of the land on 2.5.06. During the course of hearing, we have also asked the respondents to produce their records. From the records, it appears that possession of the acquired land was taken vide different Kabza Karwais (possession reports). In the Kabza Karwai report dated 13.1.97 it was recorded that possession of Khasra No. 201 could not be taken because there was some constructions and it was recorded that the possession of this area will be taken subsequently. Thereafter, the proceedings of acquisition in relation to taking of possession were initiated on 17.11.02 and 7.12.99. The possession has now been taken on 2.5.06 probably after the Secretary, Vice-Chairman and other officers of the concerned authorities were ordered to be present in Court. It is also pleaded by the respondents that most of the area was covered by Jhuggis or unauthorized constructions and number of power of attorneys , agreement to sell have been executed by the owners transferring small pieces of land measuring about 20 to 50 square yards to other persons who during this long period have raised constructions. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that large number of documents have been obtained by them and they are also looking into the right of the petitioner to receive compensation, particularly, if she has also transferred the property to a third party. This appears to be a bonafide explanation for non-disbursing the payment instantly.
5. However, it still remains unexplained on record as to why the possession of the land was not taken right from 13.1.97 till 2.5.06. The period of eight years remains unexplained and certainly creates a doubt towards the bonafides of the officials/officers of the respondents. Whenever a possession is to be taken, the authorities are expected to take possession of the entire area. In the present case, the Secretary, Land and Building who was present in Court informed that there was no reasonable explanation on record and he was looking into the matter and assured the Court that he or the concerned authorities would take appropriate action against the erring officers. The unnecessary delay in taking possession even after pronouncement of the award is unexplained and patently is unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
6. We have already noticed that the respondents are looking into the claim of the petitioner, particularly, in view of complete silence on his part for a long period of seven years. We cannot allow this writ petition as prayed. However, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner and thereafter either to pay the compensation or pass such an order as they consider fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the event they think that there are conflicting claims in relation to the same property, they would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order in consonance with the Section 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents are directed to comply with the direction of the Court as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than three months from the date of passing of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we would leave the parties to bear their own costs.