Lal Chand vs Union Of India & Anr

S. Ravindra Bhat, J

The petitioner claims a direction that the lands in Khasra No.514/1 min (02-00), situated in the revenue estate of village Kilokari, New Delhi be

declared free from acquisition in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2013â€​).

In the present case, notification Section 4 of the then prevalent Land Acquisition Act (of 1894) was of 23.06.1989. Later, a declaration under

Section 6 the said old Act was issued on 22.06.1990. The acquisition proceedings were complete when the Award was announced on 19th June, 1992.

The petitioner on the strength of entries in the khasra girdawari, contends that neither was possession taken from him nor was compensation given to

him, even though he is entitled to it.

Counter affidavit of Government of NCT of Delhi , refutes the claim made in this petition and states as follows:-

“That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner is not the recorded owner of the subject land bearing Khasra number 514/1

(2-00) nor he has made any averment regarding his entitlement to file the present writ petition nor any annexure has been filed in this behalf. The writ

petition is further liable to be dismissed as the actual vacant physical possession of the entire land measuring (11-09) i.e (1-05) Custodian and (10-04)

Shamlaat Deh, falling in the said Khasra number 514/1 was duly taken on 27.12.1990 by preparing possession proceedings on the spot and by handing

over the same to the DDA on the spot, thus the above-said land vests with the appropriate Government absolutely without any encumbrance under

section 16 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The compensation for the land i.e (1-05) was duly sent to the Reference Court under section 30-31 of Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 on 21.3.1995 and 6.8.2009 respectively. The compensation for the remaining land i.e (10-04) was also paid to different eleven

claimants in accordance with their respective different shares. It is reiterated that the petitioner is not the recorded owner of the subject land nor the

petitioner has filed any document in support of his claim to become entitled to receive the compensation.â€​

In the present case, the fact remains that the petitioner claims to be in possession of the lands which are essentially public. Even the khasra

girdawari extracts relied upon by him clearly record that the lands are owned by one- Shamlat Deh. In these circumstances, the relief claimed by

petitioner cannot be granted.

The writ petition is dismissed.