Delhi High Court - Orders
Suman Lata vs Land Acquisition Collector & Ors on 27 February, 2019
Author: S. Muralidhar
Bench: S. Muralidhar, Sanjeev Narula
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7314/2016 & CM Appl. No. 9528/2019
SUMAN LATA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh &
Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocates
versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain & Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocates for Respondent/LAC/
L&B
Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay
Singh for Respondent/DDA
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 27.02.2019
1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. The prayers in the present petition read as under:
"a) set aside the impugned award i.e. 13/2008-2009 (SW) passed by the Office of the ADM/LAC(SW) Room No. 12, Old Terminal Tax Building, Kapashera, New Delhi-110037.
b) further directions to the Respondents to initiate fresh land acquisition proceedings as per the new enactment.
c) Further directions to grant compensation as per the new law by consideration of the market value of the land by setting-aside the prior award which was passed under the old Act.
d) pass any other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."W.P.(C) 7314/2016 Page 1 of 5
3. The background facts are that land in question i.e. Plot No. 6 in Khasra No. 2/13/2(1-7), 14 Min. (2-11) 16 Min and 25 Min (0-10) admeasuring 150 Sq. yards located in the revenue estate of Village Nangli Sakrawati, Najafgarh, Delhi was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (LAA), 1894 on 7th April, 2006. This was followed by declaration under Section 6 of LAA on 4th April, 2007 that the land was required for the public purpose of "construction of 100 metres in under planned development of Delhi". The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) passed the impugned Award No. 13/2008-2009 on 30th March, 2009. It is mentioned that the Petitioner was unable to raise objection under Section 5A of the LAA and that "impliedly the possession was taken by the Respondent for the construction of 100 Mtrs. Road under planned development of Delhi."
4. The Petitioner is stated to be "the owner of the property/plot No. 6 area measuring 150 sq.yards of Khasra No. 2/13/2 in the area of Village Nangli Sakrawati, Delhi "in the abadi now known as Laxmi Nagar, Najafgarh, New Delhi". According to the Petitioner, she purchased the property from one Shri Jai Prakash in the year 2000. Enclosed as Annexure P-2 collectively to the petition are „the sale documents‟. A close scrutiny of the said documents shows that the property in question purportedly was purchased through a General Power of Attorney (GPA) on 4th September 2000. Apart from this not being a valid interest instrument for transfer of title, it appears that the Petitioner, having full knowledge of the status of the land in question, and without taking permission from the competent authority, in terms of the Delhi Land (Restriction of Transfer) Act, 1972 entered into the said W.P.(C) 7314/2016 Page 2 of 5 transaction. The original recorded owner, who obviously is not the Petitioner, has not challenged the land acquisition proceedings.
5. In para 3 of the writ petition, the Petitioner states that in May, 2009 the officials of the Land and Building (L&B) Department informed her that the land had been acquired and compensation for the same was being paid to the recorded owners. According to the Petitioner she time and again went to the office of the LAC but received no response from them.
6. The DDA in its counter affidavit states that actual physical possession of the land in issue was handed over to DDA by the Land Acquisition Collector on 10th February 2012. On the aspect of compensation, it is submitted that a sum of Rs. 8,79,97,990/- was paid to the Land and Building Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide cheque No. 445291 dated 28th January 2010. No rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner to the counter affidavit of the DDA.
7. In the course of the hearing, it transpired that the property in question in respect of which the relief under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act is being sought is located in Laxmi Nagar which is one of the unauthorized colonies in respect of which a provisional regularization certificate has been issued. On the website of the Department of Urban Development of the GNCTD, the complete list of unauthorized colonies in respect of which tentative application forms and tentative layout plans had been submitted and which are awaiting regularization has been put up. Laxmi Nagar figures at S.No.912 in the said list. Clearly, therefore, the property in question forms part of the unauthorized colony.
W.P.(C) 7314/2016 Page 3 of 58. This Court has in a series of orders, consistently held that where the property in question is part of an unauthorized colony, no relief under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act can be granted. The legal position has been summarized by the Court in a decision dated 17th January, 2019 in W.P.(C) No.4528/2015 (Mool Chand v. Union of India) as under:
"48. The third aspect of the case is that the Petitioner admits that the land in question is part of an unauthorised colony. The very basis for seeking regularisation of an unauthorised colony is that it is located on land which belongs either to the public or to some other private parties. The Petitioners would therefore not have the locus standi to seek a declaration in terms of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act in such cases since the very fact that they have sought regularisation on the basis that they are in unauthorised colony would be an admission that they do not otherwise have any valid right, title or interest in the land in question.
49. This Court has by order dated 19th December 2018 in WP(C) No.190/2016 (Harbhagwan Batra v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and order dated 8th January 2019 in WP(C) No.10201/2015 (Gurmeet Singh Grewal v. Union of India) negatived similar pleas by the Petitioners who were trying to seek similar declaration of lapsing even while admitting that they were pursuing regularisation of an unauthorised colony.
50. In a decision dated 10th January 2019 in W.P. (C) 3623 of 2018 (Akhil Sibal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi) this Court observed in this context as under:
"18. The Court at this stage may also observe that many of the unauthorized colonies are awaiting regularization orders. A large portion of these colonies are by way of encroachment on public land, W.P.(C) 7314/2016 Page 4 of 5 some of it may be on private land, but in any event, the constructions themselves are unauthorized. The major premise on which such regularization is sought is that these constructions have been erected on public or private land which does not belong to the persons who are under occupation of those structures. That very basis gets contradicted as some of them try to seek a declaration about lapsing of the land acquisition proceedings by invoking Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. This is a contradiction in terms and is legally untenable."
9. The above decision has been followed and the legal position has been reiterated by this Court in an order dated 25 th January, 2019 in W.P.(C) No.3438/2015 (Krishna Devi v. Union of India). As clarified in those orders, the dismissal of the present petition will not come in the way of the Petitioner pursuing the claim for regularisation of the unauthorised colony in question.
10. Consequently, the reliefs prayed for in the petition cannot be granted. The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 22nd August, 2016 as confirmed on 8th January, 2018 is hereby vacated. The application is disposed of. The next date of hearing i.e. 30th April 2019 stands cancelled.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
FEBRUARY 27, 2019 tr W.P.(C) 7314/2016 Page 5 of 5