← Library
High Court of DelhiW.P.(C)/3615/2017

Rajpal And ANR v. Union Of India And ORS

2017-04-28Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat,Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Khanna2 pages

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3615/2017 & CM No.15864/2017 RAJPAL AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through : Mr.Mahmood Hasan, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr.Yeeshu Jain, standing counsel with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Adv.

for L&B/LAC Mr.Pawan Mathur, standing counsel for DDA

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA

O R D E R

% 28.04.2017 The petitioner claims to be the grandson of Late Hari Singh owner of Khasra No.580/196, revenue estate, village Khichripur, Delhi. The relief claimed in these proceedings is for a declaration that the acquisition of the said land has lapsed because of noncompliance of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is contended that the petitioners are in possession of the lands and that in any event the compensation was never paid to the original owner i.e. the father Late Hari Singh. W.P.(C) 3615/2017

The material placed on record with the petition is an award No.28B/70-71, which mentions about the notification dated 13.11.1959 and the declaration under section 6 dated 20.06.1966; the land was acquired vide above award. The petitioners claim is placed upon the Will of 18.01.2017, of which recounts the previous ownership of Late Hari Singh. However, they no doubt assert that they are in possession and that compensation was never paid. Curiously however neither of these facts is mentioned in the Will which could have been the best evidence in support of the claim. If indeed Late Hari Singh had not been compensated or the amounts determined were not tendered to him, the claim would have been part of his estate. Likewise the fact that the lands were notified and were subjected to acquisition has been omitted in the Will. Besides the Will there is no other evidence to show that petitioners are in possession. In these circumstances the declaration sought cannot be granted. The writ petition and pending miscellaneous application are dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J YOGESH KHANNA, J APRIL 28, 2017 VLD W.P.(C) 3615/2017