Delhi High Court – Orders
Sh. Mahipal Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 February, 2025
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11238/2015
SH. MAHIPAL SINGH & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajan Sharma, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC, with Mr.
Sunil, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing
Counsel, Mr. Aditya Verma,
Advocates for DDA.
Mr. Chandra Prakash, Mr. Binay,
Advocates.
Mr. B. L Wali, Advocate for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
ORDER
% 25.02.2025
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a declaration that acquisition proceedings in
respect of land comprising in Khasra No. 471 (01-00), 508(01-06), 506 min
(01-03) measuring 3 bigha and 9 biswas as well as 2/7th of the undivided
share of the land comprising in Khasra No. 507(01-06) located in the
revenue estate of village Madanpur Khadar, Tehsil Kalkaji, District South-
East, Delhi (hereafter the subject land), has lapsed by virtue of Section
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/03/2025 at 21:16:08
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ( hereinafter the
2013 Act).
2. It is the petitioner’s case that neither the possession of the subject land
was taken over nor any compensation for the same has been paid.
3. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereafter the LA Act) in respect of certain land including the subject land
was issued on 23.06.1989. This was followed by a declaration under
Sections 6 and 17 of the LA Act, which was issued on 22.06.1990.
Thereafter, an award under Section 11 of the LA Act (being Award No.
20/92-93) was delivered on 19.06.1992.
4. The petitioner contends that although more than five years have
elapsed from the date of the award till the 2013 Act came into force, neither
the possession of the subject land was taken over nor was the compensation
paid. Thus, the acquisition of the subject land had lapsed by virtue of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
5. This court, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Pune
Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors.:
(2014) 3 SCC 183 had accepted the petitioner’s contention.
6. Respondent no.2/Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had preferred
a Special Leave Petition (SLP), being SLP(C) No.19800/2018, seeking to
take leave to appeal against the said decision. The Supreme Court granted
leave and the Civil Appeal No.6840/2021 arising out of the said appeal was
disposed of by the Supreme Court by an order dated 13.11.2021. The
Supreme Court noting that the decision in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (supra) was
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/03/2025 at 21:16:08
overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v.
Manohar Lal & Ors.: (2020) 8 SCC 129, remanded the matter to this court
for consideration afresh.
7. It is relevant to note that it is the case of the Land Acquisition
Collector (hereafter the LAC) as well as the Delhi Development authority
(hereafter the DDA) that possession of the subject land was taken over prior
to the 2013 Act coming into force. Paragraph 4 of the Counter affidavit filed
by the LAC is relevant and set out below:
“That it is submitted that the lands of village Madan Pur Khadar
were notified vide Notification under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act dated 23.6.1989 which was followed by
Notification under section 6 of the said Act. That the than Land
Acquisition Collector passed an Award No.20-/92-93 dated
19.6.92 and the possession of the land falling in khasra number
471 (01-00), 508 (01-06) and 506 mmin (1-03) 2/7th share was
taken on 3.12.2012 after preparing Possession Proceeding on the
spot and was handed over to the beneficiary department i.e.
DDA immediately. The compensation of the same was also sent
to the Reference Court on 28.10.2014 as there was an
apportionment dispute.”
8. An additional affidavit, affirmed on 19.10.2022, was filed by the
DDA affirming that physical possession of the subject land was taken over
by the LAC and was handed over to the DDA on the spot on 03.12.2012. It
is relevant to extract sub-paragraph (v) of paragraph 3 of the said additional
affidavit. The same is reproduced below:
v. Physical possession of the aforesaid land was taken by the
Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to the DDA on the
spot on. 03.12.2012. The vacant physical possession of the said
Land was handed over to DMRC on 08.01.2013. Copy of the
possession proceedings relating to handing over possession toThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/03/2025 at 21:16:09
DMRC by DDA is annexed as Annexure-R/1.
9. DDA has also filed the possession proceedings dated 08.01.2013
whereby the subject land was handed over to the Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation (DMRC) for construction of ‘Metro Depot for Janakpuri (W) –
Botanical Garden (Line-8) corridor of MRTS project Phase-III’.
10. The aforesaid additional affidavit was filed on 19.10.2022 and the
same has not been controverted.
11. It is also the LAC as well as DDA’s case that compensation of the
subject land has been deposited. However, the said contention is contested
on the ground that compensation was deposited with the concerned court
after the 2013 Act came into force. In this regard, it is also relevant to note
that the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal
& Ors. (supra) had clarified that the expression ‘paid’ as used in Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act is required to be construed as tendering of the said
compensation and cannot be considered as deposit of compensation in a
court. However, it is not necessary to examine this aspect as the
respondents’ claim that possession of the subject land was taken over has
not been effectively controverted. In Indore Development Authority v.
Manohar Lal & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court has authoritatively held
that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act would be applicable only if both the
conditions are cumulatively satisfied i.e. the – possession of the land has not
been taken over; and, (ii) the compensation has not been paid. If either of
the conditions is satisfied, the acquisition would not lapse by virtue of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/03/2025 at 21:16:09
12. In the present petition, the possession of the subject land was taken
over and therefore the petitioners’ contention that acquisition has lapsed by
virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is unmerited.
13. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
TEJAS KARIA, J
FEBRUARY 25, 2025
'gsr' Click here to check corrigendum, if any
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/03/2025 at 21:16:09
[ad_1]
Source link