Inderjeet vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.—The challenge laid by the petitioner in these proceedings is to the acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (''the said Act'' for short) vide a notification under Sections 4, 17(1) and 17(4) of the said Act in respect of the land measuring 8 bighas and 2 biswas in Khasra No. 520, Village: Kilokari, Tehsil: Mehrauli, Delhi. The purpose for which this land was sought to be acquired was for construction of Delhi Noida Bridge Project.

There have been subsequent developments which have material bearing on the present controversy. On 06.12.1999, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and M/s Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd (''NTBCL'' for short) in terms whereof as against 8 bighas and 2 biswas of land acquired out of khasra No. 520, NTBCL confined its requirement to only 122 square yards. This was despite the fact that in the meantime as per a possession report, the LAC had already taken over possession of eight bighas and two biswas of land forming part of khasra No. 520. (learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to dispute this possession contrary to even the agreement dated 06.12.1999 in view of other documents on records). The agreement does not end at this as it refers to other khasra numbers for which no acquisition proceedings under the said Act has taken place. These khasra numbers with portions of land given within brackets are: 574/3 (300 square yards), 604 (1150 square yards) and 605 (1000 square yards). Thus, a mutual agreement in respect of transaction for these khasra numbers appears to have been contracted between the parties.

The remuneration paid for this complete transaction is in the form that while on the one hand NTBCL confined its requirement to 122 square yards out of khasra No. 520 and further sought the aforesaid three khasra numbers, the compensation deposited with the LAC was to be fully released to the petitioner and over and above that a sum of Rs. 22 lakhs was paid to the petitioner. Thus, on the one hand, NTBCL under the agreement gained rights to 122 square yards out of khasra No. 520, 320 square yards out of khasra No. 574/3, 1150 square yards out of khasra No. 604 and 1000 square yards out of khasra No. 605, the petitioner was to be paid the compensation deposited by NTBCL for the complete land in khasra No. 520, Rs. 22 lakhs under the agreement and the remaining land other than 122 square yards out of khasra No. 520 would vest with the petitioner as it was not required by the NTBCL.

The aforesaid factual position was giving rise to an ambiguous position specifically in view of the fact that R-5/NTBCL by way of an additional affidavit sought to suggest that even the remaining land which is situated in khasra No. 520 is required by it. We wanted R-5/NTBCL to take a categorical stand in view of its flip-flop as to where does the said respondent stand since the land was sought to be acquired by the LAC for the benefit of R-5/NTBCL. An affidavit has now been filed on behalf of R-5/NTBCL under the signatures of Ms. Monisha Macedo, Sr. Vice President of R-5/NTBCL. She has affirmed that R-5/NTBCL does not require the remaining part of khasra No. 520 (i.e. other 122 square yards as specified in the agreement dated 06.12.1999) for the Delhi Noida Bridge Project.

Learned Counsel for LAC seeks to put a spoke in the wheel of the settlement arrived at between the petitioner and R-5/NTBCL claiming that it had taken over possession of the land acquired and handed it over to R-5/NTBCL. It is pleaded that the possession having been deprived from the petitioner, no challenge to the acquisition proceedings is maintainable and even an application u/s 48 of the said Act would not lie. It has been further pleaded that Khasra No. 520 of 8 bighas and 6 biswas has been acquired under the said Act and rights given to R-5/NTBCL were only for a period of 31 years approximately.

Even though the aforesaid may be true, we feel that learned Counsel for LAC has lost sight of the fact that the LAC does not acquire the land for itself but for a public purpose. The land was acquired for a specific purpose of R-5/NTBCL at the request of the petitioner-Company for a particular project. The position as it stands today is that after the land had vested in R-5/NTBCL, R-5/NTBCL in turn had entered into a private arrangement with the petitioner for its own benefit as it wanted some additional land from the petitioner without even going through the process of acquisition under the said Act. In view of this mutual arrangement, the petitioner has made available certain additional land to R-5/NTBCL which in turn gives up the rights to a part of the land acquired for its benefit and seeks to let the petitioner enjoy the benefits of the land. Till the rights of R-5/NTBCL subsist in the land, neither the LAC nor anyone else would have a role to play.

In view of the mutual agreement having been arrived at between the petitioner and R-5/NTBCL in respect of the land of the petitioner not forming subject matter of acquisition under the said Act with correspondingly R-5/NTBCL giving up rights in respect of a part of the land of the petitioner acquired under the said Act and vesting with R-5/NTBCL, no further directions are required to be passed in the matter except that the petitioner and R-5/NTBCL will remain bound by their mutual agreement.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.