DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SURENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals as common questions of law and fact are involved. The facts of the cases have been noticed separately.

(2.) As pleaded, notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was issued on 21/3/2003 seeking to acquire land for Rohini Residential Scheme at Delhi. On 19/3/2004, Notification under Sec. 6 of the Act was issued. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award under Sec. 11 of the Act assessing compensation for the acquired land on 12/7/2005. The compensation amount of Rs.80,40,76,004.00 for the acquisition of the land was deposited by the State with the Land Acquisition Collector.

(3.) A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "2013 Act") claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsed since neither possession has been taken nor the compensation therefor has been paid. The definite stand of the State before the High Court was that the possession of the land was taken on 31/8/2005 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority for planned development of Delhi. The title of the writ petitioners was in dispute. Hence, the compensation could not be paid to them. It was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector. The High Court after relying upon the judgment of this Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Manav Dharma Trust and another's (2017) 6 SCC 751 held that petitioner therein had locus to file the writ petition though not being the recorded owner. It further relied upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and held that the acquisition has lapsed as the compensation had not been paid to the land owners. Though, the issue of title of the land was left open.