Delhi High Court – Orders
Shri Ishwar Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi, Through Land … on 20 December, 2024
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh, Amit Sharma
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6206/2022
SHRI ISHWAR SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vipin K. Singh, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI, THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION
COLLECTOR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak ,SC, Mr.
Sunil Kumar Jha , Mr. M S Akhtar,
Mr. Mayank Madhu, Mr. Sami
Sameer Sidhhique(M: 7909015592)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 20.12.2024
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Shri Ishwar Singh
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order
no. ADM/LAC/SW /2019-20/88633 dated 10th December, 2019, passed by
the Respondent, whereby the application of the Petitioner under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter “the Act”) has been rejected on
the ground of being time barred.
3. Vide the said application under Section 18 of the Act, the Petitioner had
sought reference of his matter to the relevant Court for determination of the
market value of the Petitioner’s land being Khasra No. 10 (Lal Dora), in the
revenue district of village Bijwasan, Delhi (hereinafter “subject land”).
4. The brief facts are that according to the Petitioner the subject land was
purchased by the Petitioner’s father way back in 1968 from one Smt. Shanti
W.P.(C) 6206/2022 Page 1 of 4
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 25/12/2024 at 21:40:02
Devi. The acquisition proceeding in respect of the subject land is stated to
have commenced on 4th February, 2010, with issuance of the notification
under Section 4 of the Act. The notification under Section 6 and 17 of the Act
was issued on 11th January, 2011. The subject land is stated to be a part of a
larger parcel of land that was being acquired.
5. In respect of the subject land, the Petitioner is stated to have filed a
claim before the concerned Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter “LAC”).
On 1st February, 2012, the Award No. 02/2012/ROB/LAC/SH (hereinafter
“the Award”) was passed by the Respondent in respect of the acquired land
including the subject land. The notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was also
issued to the Petitioner on 10th February, 2012, through speed post.
6. It is the case of the Petitioner that he did not receive any notice in
respect of passing of the Award. As per the LAC, the reason for the non-
issuance of notice was that the Petitioner’s name was not recorded in the
relevant revenue records. Thus, the compensation was recorded and assessed
in the name of the predecessor in interest qua the subject land i.e., the seller
from whom the Petitioner’s father had purchased the subject land, namely
Smt. Shanti Devi.
7. The Petitioner is stated to have then obtained a NOC from the said
predecessor in interest and furnished the same before the concerned LAC.
Accordingly, the payment of Rs. 22 Lakhs was released in favour of the
Petitioner on 22nd May, 2012.
8. Thereafter, the Petitioner wanted to seek enhancement of the said
compensation and accordingly, on 30th July, 2012, the Petitioner had filed an
application before the concerned LAC seeking reference under Section 18 of
the Act. The said reference petition for enhancement was rejected vide the
W.P.(C) 6206/2022 Page 2 of 4
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 25/12/2024 at 21:40:02
impugned order on the ground of being time barred.
9. The submission of the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that since the
Petitioner had never received notice of the Award itself, until his name was
properly recorded in the revenue records, the date of pronouncement of the
said Award cannot be reckoned as the date for calculating the limitation period
for filing the application under Section 18 of the Act. In any event, it is his
submission that the reference petition was still within the limitation period in
view of Section 18(2) of the Act, which prescribes a period of 6 months from
the date of the Collector’s Award for filing of a reference in cases where the
applicant was not present or represented before the Collector at the time when
the Award was made.
10. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent disputes this position and submits that
once the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued to the Petitioner as
recorded in the impugned order dated 10th December, 2019, through speed
post, the limitation would be reckoned as one month from the said date.
11. The ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the decision of a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 7817/2017 titled Chet Singh Rana
Vs Union of India.
12. In the present case, the Award itself is dated 1st February, 2012, and the
reference has been filed on 30th July, 2012, within the six months period. The
fact that the compensation was paid on 22nd May, 2012, itself would prove
the Petitioner’s case that the notice of the Award was not received as he was
not the recorded owner in the revenue records.
13. Considering the above discussion, the Court is persuaded to follow the
decision in Chet Singh Rana (supra) where the Court vide order dated 5th
September, 2017, had observed as under:
W.P.(C) 6206/2022 Page 3 of 4
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 25/12/2024 at 21:40:03
“We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
issue of limitation, the Court is of the view that the
reference petition – which is the only opportunity
provided by law to a land owner to establish his case
for higher compensation by leading evidence, should be
forwarded under Section 18 of the 1894 Act. At the same
time, it is open to the reference Court to decide the issue
of limitation, if so raised by the respondent, in
opposition to the maintainability.
In view of the above, the order dated 31.01.2017
is set-aside. The LAC shall also forward the reference
to the competent court within six weeks. All questions of
law, including the issue of limitation are kept open. The
writ petition is allowed in the above terms.”
14. Accordingly, it is directed that the reference under Section 18 of the
Act sought by the Petitioner be forwarded to the concerned Court for
adjudication.
15. Needless to state, if the LAC wishes to raise the aspect of limitation, it
may do so before the Reference Court.
16. Insofar as the interest aspect is concerned, the question as to whether
any interest would be liable to be paid, for the period from 2012 to till date,
if there is enhancement of compensation, shall also be examined by the
Reference Court and the interest shall not be calculated automatically, for the
entire period.
17. The Petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any,
are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J
AMIT SHARMA, J
DECEMBER 20, 2024/kr/vc/ms
W.P.(C) 6206/2022 Page 4 of 4
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 25/12/2024 at 21:40:03