GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. DHANNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dtd. 16/11/2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 3158 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein - original writ petitioner (now represented through his heirs) and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2013"), the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that while allowing the writ petition the High Court has relied upon and/or followed the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 on the ground that the possession of the subject land could not be taken. It is required to be noted that before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant that the land belongs to Gram Sabha and therefore the original writ petitioner had no locus to pray for declaration that the acquisition with respect to subject land is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Sec. 24(2) of the Act, 2013. However, without deciding the question of ownership and keeping the same open, the High Court has entertained the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 - original writ petitioner. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even before the High Court the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioner did not dispute that the land belongs to Gram Sabha. In that view of the matter when the land belongs to Gram Sabha which was even admitted on behalf of the original writ petitioner, the High Court ought not to have entertained the said writ petition at the instance of the original writ petitioner who was not even the recorded owner. Even the question with respect to the compensation to be paid would arise only in favour of recorded owner and/or in favour of a person who had a title.

(3.) Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and as observed hereinabove that the land belongs to Gram Sabha which was admitted on behalf of the original writ petitioner and the original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner and/or even the owner, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.