Rohtas Kumar Gupta vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others

Gita Mittal, J.—These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners claiming to be the owners of different portions of land in Khasra No. 249 in WP (C) No. 1567/2008, Khasra No. 265 in WP (C) Nos. 1565 & 1570/2008 & Khasra No. 271 in WP (C) Nos. 1566, 1568 & 1569/2008, situated in the revenue estate of village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi 110042. The petitioners have contended that they acquired rights in this property under registered sale deed or other documents from the recorded owners.

The respondent No. 1 is stated to have issued a notification u/s 4 & 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 28th April, 1985 proposing to acquire land measuring 1852 bighas 6 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi for the public purpose for construction of Rohini Residential Scheme, Phase V. The requisite declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 6th April, 1996. However, the proposed acquisition is stated to have been challenged in the year 1997 vide Writ Petition No. 3938/1997 and other connected writ petitions wherein orders of stay were passed so far as the subject land and notifications were concerned.

It is not disputed that so far as the acquisition proceedings are concerned, the same culminated in the making of an award bearing No. 1/1998-99/DC-NW/1998-99 dated 24th April, 1998 u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners contending that after issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the requisite declaration u/s 6, the petitioners stopped visiting the land in question and that the same has been occupied by several jhuggi dwellers. The petitioners submit that as a result, despite being the erstwhile owner of the subject land, the petitioners were being denied the benefit of the compensation found due and payable in respect of the subject land.

Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 on advance notice, has objected to the maintainability of the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have failed to disclose any valid document(s) of title. It has further been contended that the petitioners can be released the compensation which has been awarded only against possession of the subject land being handed over to the statutory authorities by the petitioners. The submission is that there is no averment in the writ petitions even to the effect that the petitioners are ready, willing and able to hand over possession of the subject land to the authorities. According to learned Counsel for the respondent, the petitioners appear to have transacted with the subject land and now, by these writ petitions, are making mala fide attempts to recover compensation.

I find that it is an admitted position that the Division Bench of this Court has upheld the validity of the acquisition proceedings by a judgment dated 9th July, 2007 passed in the afore-noticed writ petition. Some of the petitioners are stated to have challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court.

Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, has submitted that dispossession of the petitioners has been stayed by the Apex Court in some of the proceedings.

Be that as it may, the petitioners have claimed to be the owner of the subject land which land is admittedly in possession of certain third parties. These writ petitions give rise to purely disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated upon in the present proceedings, inasmuch as the same requires consideration of the ownership and rights of the petitioner vis a vis the third parties who have been admittedly in possession of the land. In any case, the respondent would be required to follow the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, so far as deposit of the compensation with the collector and its disbursement u/s 31 is concerned which provides the manner in which the compensation would be apportioned and paid even in the case of dispute between different claimants.

So far as the issue of possession is concerned, Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides that it is only upon making of the award u/s 11 that the collector may take possession of the land rights whereupon vests absolutely on the Government free from all encumbrances. Section 17 would entitle the Government to take possession of the land which is required urgently even prior to making of the award on compliance of the statutory conditions. However, in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and Others Vs. Godrej and Boyce, , the Apex Court has declared the legal position that so long as the possession is not taken over, the mere fact of a notification u/s 4 or declaration u/s 6 has been made, does not divest the owner of his rights in respect of the land or relieve him of the duty to take care of the land and protect it against encroachments. The Apex Court has further clearly declared the applicable law that issuance of such notification u/s 4 or declaration u/s 6 also does not confer on the State Government any right to interfere with the ownership or other rights in the land or impose on it any duty to remove encroachment thereof and to safeguard the interest of the original owner of the land.

In this view of the matter, this writ petition is wholly misconceived. It remained for the petitioners to ensure that the subject land was protected from any kind of encroachment or occupation, pending completion of the effectuation of stay and taking over of the possession by the Government.

For all these reasons, the petitioners are disentitled to any relief in the present matters.

The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.

It is, however, made clear that nothing herein contained would be considered an expression of opinion on the merits of the petitioners'' claim of ownership and entitlement to the compensation. It shall be open for the petitioners to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law in respect of the claims which have been made in the present petitions against the respondents or against the third parties who according to the petitioners, are illegally occupying the petitioners'' land.

Dasti.