Umed Singh v. Union Of India And ORS

$-37,38,39,40,41,42,43 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 7223/2016 RAM KAUR & ORS Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Mr. Harpreet Singh, Mr. MC Verma, Mr. Pranjal Sarawan, UNION OF INDIA & ORS Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Mr. Roshan Lai Goel & Mr.

Kavinder Gill for UOI.

Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel for DDA.

W.P.(C) 7230/2016 SHYAM SUNDER & UNION OF INDIA & ORS Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Mr. Roshan Lai Goel arid Mr. Kavinder Gill.forUOI.

Ms. Shobhna Takiar for DDA W.P.(C) 7231/2016 MANGE RAM & UNION OF INDIA & ORS By:AMULYA

.

Mr. Yeeshu JainandMs. JyotiTyagi, Mr. Roshan Lai Goal and Mr. Kavinder Gill for UOI.

Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel with Mr. Raieev Jha for DBA.

W.P.(C) 7234/2016 MANOJ KUMAR & UNION OF INDIA & Ms. Ruchika Rathi with Ms. Sanya Dua Mr. Roshan Lai Goal and Mr. Kavinder Gill for UOI.

W.P.(C) 7242/2016 SANDEEP DABAS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms; Jyoti Tyagi, Mr. Roshan Lai Goal and Mr. Kavinder Gill for UOI.

Mr. Arun Birbal, Mr. Ajay Birbal for DBA.

W.P.(C) 7244/2016 UMBED SINGH

Mr. MG Verma, Mr. Pranjal Sarawan, UNION OF INDIA & Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Mr. Roshan Lai Goel and Mr. Kavinder Gill for UOI.

Mr. Tanveer Singh Khehar with Mr. Vishal Tripathi for DDA.

W.P.(C) 7247/2016 RAMESH CHAND DABAS & UNION OF INDIA & Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Mr. Roshan Lai Goel and Mr. Kavinder Gill for UOI.

Mr. Arjun Pant for DDA.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA

ORDER

% 12.03.2019

1. These petitions have been filed, inter alia, praying for the same relief and are being disposed of by a common order. Nevertheless, these petitions have been heard separately. For the purpose of convenience, W.P. (C). 7223/2016 titled Ram Kaur & Ors. v Union of India and Ors. is taken up as the lead matter and shall be discussed in some detail.

W.P. 7223/2016 & Other connected matters '

/3

2. The prayers made in W.P. (C) 1223I2Q16 read as under: (I) Issue writ of DECLARATION and/or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction in the like nature declaring the impugned acquisition proceedings commenced vide notification under Section 4 of Act 1894 bearing no. F.11(19)/01/L&B/LA/20112 Dated , 21.03.2003 leading to Section 6 dt. 19.03.2014 and resulting in Award no. 16/2005-06 for Village Mubarak Pur Dabas Delhi vis- avis subject lands (detailed in Para 5) stands lapsed; Consequently issue writ of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned acquisition proceedings commenced vide notification under Section 4 of Act 1894 bearing no. F- 11(19)/01/L&B/LA/20112 Dated 21.03.2003 leading to Section 6 dt. 19.03.2014 and resulting in Award no. 16/2005-06 for Village Mubarak Pur Dabas Delhi vis-aQ) vis subject lands (Para 5);

Issue MANDAMUS and/or any other Writ, Order or direction in the like nature commanding the respondents not to interfere with and/or obstruct the petitioners in peaceful enjoyment of the subject lands (detailed in Para 5) situate in village Mubarak Pur Dabas, Delhi. Pass any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

3. The admitted facts are that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA) issued on 2L^ March 2003 which was followed / by a declaration under Section 6 of the LAA on 19^*^ March 2004. The impugned Award No. 16/2005-06 was passed on 14^*^ September 2005.

4. The case of the Petitioners in para 2 of the petition is that "barring the petitioners, compensation has not been paid/tendered and/or deposited to majority of the landowners..." In other words, the Petitioners do not dispute that they have received compensation. However, they contend that the possession of the land in question still remains with them and therefore they are entitled to the relief under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transi^arency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 201 ('the 2013 Act').

5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the LAC (Respondent No. 5), it is pointed out that the possession of the land in question was taken on the spot on th 4 April 2006 and handed over to the DDA "for the purpose of acquisition was for Rohini Residential Scheme".

^

6. In relation to the lands acquired for the Rohini Residential Scheme, the Supreme Court has in a series of orders in Rahul Gupta v. DDA [SLP (C) No. 16385-16388 of 2012] held that even if on the date of the order of the Supreme • th Court, i.e. 18 October 2016, actual physical possession was not with the DDA, if such physical possession was not handed over within ten days, then the DDA would be deemed to be in possession of the lands in question.

7. In view of the above orders of the Supreme Court as of today, the lands in question are deemed to be in possession of the DDA. Therefore, the only ground on which the Petitioners are seeking the relief under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act has ceased to exist.

8. The facts in the connected petitions are similar with the only difference being in the khasra numbers. The stand f the Respondents is also identical.

9. Consequently, there is no merit in these writ petitions and they are dismissed as such.

AR, J.

S.M I.S. MEHTA, J.

MARCH 12, 2019 rd W.P. 7223/2016 & Other connected matters