Land Acquisition is complete

Delhi Development Authority v. Batti & Ors

&

Government of NCT v. Batti & Ors

Two #CivilAppeals were filed before the #SupremeCourt against the order passed by #DelhiHighCourt on 30.11.2017.

#Decision of #DelhiHighCourt:

#Acquisition #proceeding has #lapsed as the amount of #compensation was #nottendered to Respondent. The issue regarding entitlement of compensation was kept open as there was dispute regarding title of the land relying?upon?the?judgment?of?Apex Court in #Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors.

Fact:

1.????The husband of the Respondent was the son Late Harkesh and father-in-law of the respondent and was alleged to be the recorded owner of land admeasuring measuring?23?bighas?and?2?biswas,?situated?in?the revenue estate of village Ghari Mandu, Shahdara, Delhi, revenue?estate?of?Village?Ghari?Mandu,?Shahdara,?Delhi.

2.????There?is?nothing?on?record?to?suggest?the acquisition?in?question?was?ever?challenged?by?the predecessor in interest?of?respondent?no.1.

3.????And no surviving membership was placed on record.

4.????The Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court was filed in the year 2015 referring to section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Transparency in Land (RFCTLARR 2013). Alleging that neither possession of land was taken nor compensation was paid as such acquisition has lapsed.??

5.????Whereas Delhi High Court noticed the fact that the possession of the land had been taken by the State and handed over to the Forest?Department?for?development?as green?belt,?agriculture?and?water?body?as?the?land?falls?in?‘O’ Zone.??

6.????It?was?further?pleaded?that?respondent?no.1?was?not entitled to receive any compensation as the land was vested in Gaon Sabha. ?

7.????The High Court held that the acquisition in question has lapsed as the compensation was not tendered. However, the entitlement of compensation to the Respondent was kept open as there was dispute regarding the title of the land. The order was passed #relying?upon?the #judgment?of?Apex Court in #Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors.

8.????However, this #judgement was #overruled in the case of #Indore Development?Authority?vs.?Manoharlal?and?Others. It was held that compliance of either of the two questions: taking over of the possession of land or payment of compensation is enough to sustain the acquisition.

Observation of the Supreme Court:

1.????In view of the facts?admitted?on?record?it?is?evident?that?the?possession of?the?land?was?taken?after?the?acquisition?was?complete. There?was?no?question?of payment of compensation to the predecessor in interest of the Respondent as there was dispute regarding title of the land.?

*Contradictory stand of the Writ Petitioner

a.?????Initially,?the?stand?sought to be?taken?by?the?writ petitioner?before?the?High?Court?was?that?the?physical possession?of?the?land?had?not?been?taken,?however,?the same?was?given?up.

b.????Stand taken before Delhi High Court: Possession?of the?land?was?taken?after?the?award?was?announced?and?the same?was?handed?over?to?the?Forest?Department?for development?as?green?belt,?agriculture?and?water?body?as the?land?falls?in?‘O’?Zone.

2.????There?is?nothing?on?record?to suggest?as?to?what?action?was?taken?by?the?person?who claimed?interest?in?the?property?to?seek?compensation,?in case?land?owned?by?him?was?acquired?more?than?two decades?back?and?no?compensation?paid.?The?litigation started?only?with?enactment?of?Act?of?2013

Decision of the Supreme Court: Essential requisite for entitlement of compensation on the ground of lapse of acquisition proceeding as required u/s24(2) of RFCTLARR Act 2013 is not satisfied. The order of Delhi High Court was set aside by the bench of Apex Court comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S Oka J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal J on 22.03.2023.