Full Judgement
Delhi High Court
Shailendra vs Deputy Director (Lm) (South Zone-Ii) & ... on 8 April, 2024
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~76
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4505/2024
SHAILENDRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Girish K. Sharma, Advocate
versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR (LM) (SOUTH ZONE-II) & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing
counsel with Ms. K. Kaomudi Kiran,
Mr. Mayank Arora, Mr. M.S. Akhtar
and Ms. Nidhi Thakur, Advocates for
LAC.
Mr. Ashim Vachher, Standing
Counsel for DDA with Mr. Kunal
Lakra, Mr. Vaibhav Dabas,
Advocates for DDA
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Bharat Arora, Mr. Gaurav
Arora, Ms. Smita Maan and Mr.
Kshitiz Agnihotri, Advocates for
applicant/intervener..
% Date of Decision: 08th April, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:08.04.2024 W.P.(C) 4505/2024 Page 1 of 13
19:58:11
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
C.M.No.20987/2024
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
C.M.No.20986/2024
3. Present application has been filed on behalf of respondent-DDA under Section 151 CPC, 1908 seeking modification of order dated 27th March, 2024 to the extent that Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) may be directed to hand over possession of land comprising Khasra Nos. 1883(4-16), 1884(4-
16) and 1885(4-16) situated at Village Chhatarpur, New Delhi free from all encumbrances to the Respondent-DDA on 09th April, 2024, instead of only two Khasra numbers which have been directed to be handed over by this Court vide order dated 27th March, 2024. The respondent-DDA also seeks modification of the order to the extent that the directions for an enquiry to be carried out by Commissioner, Land Management (LM) against the Deputy Director be withdrawn.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent-DDA states that the possession of the land pertaining to Khasra No. 1885 (4-16) of Village Chhatarpur, New Delhi had been handed over to DDA through Land & Building Department on 31st December, 2013 despite a stay granted by this Court in favour of respondent no.3 in W.P.(C) 1786/1999. He states that consequently, a contempt petition being Contempt Case (C) No.688 of 2014 was filed on 25th November, 2014 and the said contempt case was
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:08.04.2024 W.P.(C) 4505/2024 Page 2 of 13 19:58:11 subsequently disposed of by this Court as the DDA had purged the contempt petition by returning possession of Khasra No.1885 (4-16) to the petitioner in the said petition.
5. He states that in respect to the reply to RTI application dated 18th August, 2023 (wherein it was stated that physical possession of Khasra No. 1885 (4-16) was handed over to DDA on 31st December, 2013) was issued by the NL-II branch of LM Department which maintains the land records of DDA. He states that the said branch however does not have the requisite records of litigation and the said branch has given the reply of RTI application on the basis of its record which was incomplete. He states that the letters dated 04th January, 2024 and 22nd March, 2024 were issued by the Deputy Director of concerned Land Management zone i.e. LM South Zone- II which has all the relevant records of land and litigation pertaining to the land in question.
6. In view of the above, present application is allowed and the order dated 27th Mach, 2024 is modified to the extent that the LAC will hand over possession of land comprising Khasra Nos. 1883(4-16), 1884(4-16) and 1885(4-16) situated at Village Chhatarpur, New Delhi free from all encumbrances to the respondent-DDA on 09th April, 2024, instead of only two Khasra numbers which had been directed to be handed over by this Court vide order dated 27th March, 2024. Further the direction issued vide order dated 27th March, 2024 directing an enquiry to be carried out by the Commissioner, LM against the Deputy Director is withdrawn. Accordingly, the order dated 27th March, 2024 shall now read as under:-
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:08.04.2024 W.P.(C) 4505/2024 Page 3 of 13 19:58:11
+ W.P.(C) 4505/2024 SHAILENDRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Girish K.Sharma, Advocate.
versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR (LM) (SOUTH ZONE-II) & ANR.
..... Respondents Through: Mr.Ashim Vachher, standing counsel for DDA with Mr.Kunal Lakra, Advocate.
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Patnaik, standing counsel for LAC/L&B/GNCTD with Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr.M.S.Akhtar, Ms.Nidhi Thakur, Ms.Mussarrat Benezeer and Mr.Mayank Arora, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA ORDER % 27.03.2024
1. Present public interest petition has been filed seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to take physical possession of the property bearing Khasra nos.1883 (4-16), 1884 (4-16), 1885 (4-16) at Village Chattarpur, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject property').
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that subject property was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), as required for the planned development of Delhi vide notification dated 25th November, 1980.
He states that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 27th May, 1985, 06th June, 1985, 07th June, 1985 and 26th February, 1986 and the award was announced on 05th June, 1987.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:08.04.2024 W.P.(C) 4505/2024 Page 4 of 13 19:58:11
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 19th May, 2022 allowed Civil Appeal No. 3862 of 2022, titled as Delhi Development Authority v. Sunil Khatri & Others, in favour of DDA. He states that the Supreme Court in the above said appeal has vested the subject property in favour of DDA. He submits that as per records of DDA, the subject property has been acquired by DDA and DDA is in physical possession of Khasra No. 1885 (4-16) at Village Chattarpur as of 31st December, 2013. In support of his contention, he relies upon the reply to the RTI application issued by DDA and placed at page 43 of the paper book.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that contrary to official records, both Khasra Nos.1883 (4-16) and 1884 (4-16) are illegally occupied by private individuals and the land is not in physical possession of DDA. He states that Khasra No. 1885 (4-16), which is claimed to be in possession of DDA has boundary walls mounted along with a board displaying the land belongs to Shri. Dharmendra Yadav (Dewa), and the same is being prepared for construction with leveling being done, addressed as 7, Gulmohar Avenue.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-DDA states that the aforesaid three Khasra numbers are in physical possession of Land Acquisition Collector. He states that despite the Supreme Court judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Sunil Khatri & Others (supra), possession of Khasra nos.1883 (4-16), 1884 (4-16), 1885 (4-16) at Village Chattarpur, Delhi has not been handed over to DDA till date. In support of his contention, he relies upon three letters dated 26th July, 2022, 04th January, 2024 and 22nd March, 2024. Photocopies of the said letters are taken on record.
6. On the oral prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, Land Acquisition Collector is impleaded as a party and the standing counsel for the Land Acquisition Collector, who is present in Court, is directed to accept notice.
7. At the passover stage, learned standing counsel for Land Acquisition Collector, on instructions, states that possession of Kharsa No.1885 (4-16) at Village Chattarpur, Delhi is with DDA. He further
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:08.04.2024 W.P.(C) 4505/2024 Page 5 of 13 19:58:11 states that possession of Khasra nos.1883 (4-16), 1884 (4-16) at Village Chattarpur, Delhi shall be handed over to the officials of DDA on 09th April, 2024. He clarifies that any construction carried out post 25th November, 1980 shall be removed prior to handing over possession to DDA.
8. However, learned counsel for the respondent-DDA states that the possession of the land pertaining to Khasra No. 1885 (4-16) of Village Chhatarpur, New Delhi had been handed over to DDA through Land & Building Department on 31st December, 2013 despite a stay granted by this Court in favour of respondent no.3 in W.P.(C) 1786/1999. He states that consequently, a Contempt Petition being Contempt Case (C) No.688 of 2014 was filed on 25th November, 2014 and the said Contempt Case was subsequently disposed of by this Court as the DDA had purged the contempt petition by returning possession of Khasra No.1885 (4-16) to the petitioner in the said petition.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid, present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to DDA to take over physical possession of Khasra Nos.1883 (4-16), 1884 (4-16) and 1885 (4-16) at Village Chattarpur, Delhi on 09th April, 2024 from the Land Acquisition Collector. The Deputy Commissioner of Police of the concerned area is directed to provide police aid, so that the demolition action can be carried out and vacant physical possession of Khasra nos.1883 (4-16), 1884 (4-16) and 1885 (4-16) at Village Chattarpur, Delhi can be taken over by DDA in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Sunil Khatri & Others (supra).
10. List the matter for compliance on 16th July, 2024.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J MARCH 27, 2024 KA"
7. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:08.04.2024 W.P.(C) 4505/2024 Page 6 of 13 19:58:11
CM APPL. 20205/2024 (application on behalf of Ms. Aruna Shrinagesh seeking impleadment) CM APPL. 20225/2024(seeking recall of the order dated 27.03.2024) CM APPL. 20229/2024 (seeking stay of the order dated 27.03.2024)
8. The applicant, Ms. Aruna Shrinagesh has filed these applications through an attorney holder Mr. Rajiv Sapra. It is stated that the Applicant is the owner, in occupation of land and building forming part of Khasra No. 1883(4-16) and Khasra No. 1884(4-16) at Village Chhatarpur, Delhi ('subject land'). It is stated that the Applicant has residential houses on the subject land.
9. It is stated that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the subject land under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act of 1894') culminated in an award dated 26th May, 1997, which was challenged by the recorded owners in W.P.(C) No. 1786/1999 titled Sheila Khatri and Ors. vs. Union of India. It is stated that the said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 22nd December, 2014 as the Court held that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('Act of 2013').
10. It is stated that Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') filed a SLP, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 3862/2022 titled DDA vs. Sunil Khatri and Ors. assailing the judgment dated 22nd December, 2014; and the said SLP has since been allowed by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 19th May, 2022.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:08.04.2024 W.P.(C) 4505/2024 Page 7 of 13 19:58:11
11. It is stated that after the learning about the passing of the order dated 27th March, 2024 in the present writ petition, the applicant herein has filed a representation dated 2nd April, 2024 before the Lieutenant Governor ('LG') for release of the subject land under Section 48 of the Act of 1894. It is stated that the Applicant continues to be in actual physical possession of the subject land even after passing of the order of the Supreme Court dated 19th May, 2022. It is stated that the Applicant has been in possession of the subject land since 1978. It is stated that so as to enable the applicant to avail its remedy under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act of 1894'), the order dated 27th March, 2024 be recalled or kept in abeyance until the said application is decided by the LG.
12. Learned senior counsel for the Applicant relies upon the judgment of this Court in Pawan Sagar Jain vs. Union of India1 to contend that the applicant has a right to file a representation under Section 48 of the Act of 1894, for denotification from acquisition even after the passing of the judgment dated 19th May, 2022 by the Supreme Court.
13. He states that in similar circumstances in Civil Appeal No. 397/2023 titled DDA vs. Dewan Chand Pruthi and Ors., wherein though the acquisition proceedings were upheld by the Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 20th January, 2023; however, direction to maintain status quo has been issued to DDA vide order dated 12th February, 2024, so as to await the pronouncement of judgment in SLP (C) No. 26697/2019.
1
2010 (116) DRJ 438(DB)
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:08.04.2024 W.P.(C) 4505/2024 Page 8 of 13 19:58:11
14. In reply, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3, LAC states that the interim order dated 12th February, 2024 in DDA vs. Dewan Chand Pruthi (Supra) was passed by the Supreme Court in the disposed of Civil Appeal wherein the acquisition proceedings were upheld; however, no application for interim relief is maintainable before the High Court after the acquisition proceedings have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
16. The acquisition proceedings for the subject land under the Act of 1894 have indisputably been upheld by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated 19th May, 2022; and therefore, attained finality. The Applicant has no right to continue in physical possession over the subject land and her possession after the passing of the said judgment is illegal. In ordinary course, the Applicant after the passing of the judgment of the Supreme Court should have vacated the subject land of her own volition. In these facts, therefore, the directions issued by this Court to Respondents vide order dated 27th March, 2024 for taking over the physical possession are in conformity with judgment of the Supreme Court.
17. In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 19th May, 2022, this Court vide order dated 27th March, 2024 has directed the Respondent No. 3, LAC to handover the possession of the subject land to Respondent No. 2, DDA after removing any construction carried out post 25th November, 1980. The Respondent No. 3, LAC has undertaken to handover the possession to DDA on 9th April, 2024.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:08.04.2024 W.P.(C) 4505/2024 Page 9 of 13 19:58:11
18. The Applicant seeks recall of the order dated 27th March, 2024 on the ground that she has (now) filed an application on 2nd April, 2024 before the LG under Section 48 of the Act of 1894, which is pending adjudication; so as to await the final outcome of the said application. We are of the considered opinion that the said prayer of the Applicant cannot be acceded to for the reasons set out hereinunder.
19. First, it is evident from the record that the Applicant herein, after acquiring knowledge of the order dated 27th March, 2024, filed an application dated 2nd April, 2024 before the LG under Section 48 of the Act of 1894. The said application has been filed two years after the pronouncement of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 19th May, 2022 to resist handing over the physical possession.
20. Second, in Raheja Hospital and Psychiatric Research Institute vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.2 a Division Bench of this Court has opined that a landowner cannot maintain an application under Section 48 of the Act of 1894 after the validity of acquisition proceedings have been upheld by a Court of Law. The relevant paras read as under:-
" 32. The scheme of the Act suggests to us that an inquiry under Section 5-A thereof and a challenge to a Section 6 declaration inherently take within their fold an application of mind by the appropriate Government to discontinuing the acquisition process or denotification of the land. If objections raised by a landowner under Section 5-A of the Act are upheld, the effect would be that the acquisition process would come to a halt and the land would not be acquired. Similarly, if a challenge to a Section 6 declaration were upheld, the acquisition process would come to a halt and the land would not-be acquired. An exercise of power under Section 48 of the Act by the appropriate Government does not lead to any other or different result. In other words, what is sought to be achieved by resort to
2 2005 (85) DRJ 501 (DB), Para 32, 33, 37, 38 and 39.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:08.04.2024 W.P.(C) 4505/2024 Page 10 of 13 19:58:11
a challenge to Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act is the same as what is sought to be achieved by resort to Section 48 of the Act, and vice versa. In so far as the present case is concerned, what the Petitioner is seeking to achieve by invoking Section 48 of the Act is something that it has already tried to achieve (but failed) in its first writ petition wherein a challenge was laid to the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. We are of the view that a repeated challenge is not only impermissible, but amounts to an abuse of the judicial process.
33. Additionally, we may note that the Petitioner is now trying to have the acquisition indirectly set aside, something that it was unsuccessful in doing directly through its first writ petition.
....
37. A representation made by a landowner under Section 48 of the Act really cannot say anything more or different from what has already been indicated above. Therefore, even if it is held that a representation under Section 48 of the Act is maintainable, all that a landowner can do is to repeat and reiterate the objections taken by him at the stage of the Section 5-A inquiry and at the stage of challenging the Section 6 declaration. This being the position, we are of the view that the Act does not give repetitive or unlimited opportunities to a landowner to challenge the acquisition process. The right of a landowner, in the event of compulsory acquisition, is not like a double-barreled gun, one salvo to be fired challenging the Notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act (either simultaneously or separately), and another to be fired a little later to achieve the same end result, by demanding denotification under Section 48. of the Act.
38. For the reasons given by us above, we are of the view that the guidelines dated 2nd December, 1998 are non-statutory and, therefore, not legally enforceable. These guidelines do not confer any enforceable right on any landowner. Consequently, a landowner has no enforceable right to make a representation under Section 48 of the Act nor are the Respondents obliged to consider such a representation even if a landowner has made it, more particularly when the acquisition is upheld by a court of law, as in the present case. However, if there is any deviation from these guidelines resulting in any discriminatory treatment against a landowner, then and only then could a landowner seek enforcement of the guidelines, which may even then be declined, if sufficient cause is shown. The right of a landowner in respect of the applicability of the guidelines is limited only to this extent.
39. In so far as the present case is concerned, it must, therefore, be held that the representations made by the Petitioner under Section 48 of the Act are not maintainable and ought to have been summarily rejected. It may be noted that the Petitioner had agitated and argued the question of alleged
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:08.04.2024 W.P.(C) 4505/2024 Page 11 of 13 19:58:11 discrimination in the second writ petition and that issue cannot now be reopened."
(emphasis supplied)
21. The said judgment was recently followed by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajan Sood vs. DDA3. The Division Bench held that no writ petition for restraining DDA from taking over physical possession of the acquired land can be maintained on the ground that an application under Section 48 of the Act of 1894 is pending adjudication; especially after the validity of the acquisition proceedings has been upheld by the Court of law. In that case as well, the acquisition proceedings had been upheld by the Supreme Court and the writ petition was filed in the High Court subsequently seeking stay against dispossession. The facts of the present case and the reliefs sought in these applications are similar to Rajan Sood vs. DDA (supra).
22. The reliance placed by the Applicant on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in Pawan Sagar Jain (supra) is distinguishable. In that case, liberty to file an application under Section 48 of the Act of 1894 before the LG, in a time bound manner, was granted by the Division Bench which upheld the acquisition proceedings. In the facts of this case, no such liberty has been reserved to the Applicant herein by the Supreme Court while passing the judgment dated 22nd December, 2014.
23. The Applicant has also handed over a compilation of list of denotifications issued by the LG with respect to village Chhatarpur, Delhi under the cover of the index dated 07th April, 2024. The notifications in this
3 LPA No. 19/2023.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:08.04.2024 W.P.(C) 4505/2024 Page 12 of 13 19:58:11
compilation, approximately 8, all pre-date the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 22nd December, 2014 passed against the Applicant. Presumably, the said fact would have been agitated by the Applicant before the Supreme Court during the hearing of their Civil Appeal No. 3862/2022.
24. The interim relief of status quo dated 12th February, 2024 in the case of Dewan Chand Pruthi (supra) was granted by Supreme Court in the disposed of Civil Appeal No. 397/2023 filed by DDA. We agree with the submission of learned counsel for Respondent No.3/LAC that an application for status quo cannot be maintained by the landowner before this Court after the Civil Appeal No. 3862/2022 of DDA, upholding the acquisition proceedings stands allowed by the Supreme Court
25. Accordingly, we find that the present applications i.e., CM APPL. 20225/2024 and CM APPL. 20229/2024 seeking recall and/or stay of the order dated 27th March, 2024 are not maintainable and the same are accordingly dismissed.
26. List CM APPL. 20205/2024 on 16th July, 2024.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J APRIL 8, 2024 KA/rhc/sk
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:08.04.2024 W.P.(C) 4505/2024 Page 13 of 13 19:58:11
