BUDHU RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition initially was instituted on 6/9/1994 by the petitioners seeking direction against respondents 1 to 4, who alone were impleaded as respondents, for a writ of prohibition restraining respondent No.3 from interfearing in petitioners peaceful possession occupation with further direction not to dispossess them otherwise than in due course of law from land measuring 3 bighas 4 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 5881/2781/1433 situate in village Klarkarduma, Delhi. Further direction prayed for in the writ petition was that direction be issued to respondents 1 to 4 to complete the acquisition proceedings in respect of the. petitioners land in terms of the award No. 21/1970-71 of village Karkarduma by taking possession or alternatively directing the respondents to withdraw from acquisition the land in question in terms of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(2.) The aforementioned reliefs were prayed by the petitioners alleging that the father of petitioners 3 to 5 and of the petitioners 1 and 2 occupied land measuring 3 bighas 4 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 5881/2781/1433 situate within the revenue estate of village Karkarduma and classified in revenue record as Rosli for the last more than 50 years. Another part of adjoining land, also shown as Khasra No. 5881/2781/1433 measuring 1 bigha 7 biswas and classified as Rosli in revenue records is recorded in possession of Shri Nalwa son of Har Chand as Gair Maurusi. On 13/11/1959 a general notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") was published thereby intending to acquire 34070 acres of land in Delhi. The notification also included land measuring 3 bighas 17 biswas, out of Khasra No. 5881/2781/1433, which included 1 bigha 7 biswas shown in revenue record to be in the tenancy of Nalwa and the remaining 1 bigha 10 biswas from out of the petitioners holding. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed and ultimately respondent No.4 made his award No.21/70-71 for acquisition of an area of 2 bighas 17 biswas out of Khasra No. 5881/2781/1433. in the award statement also appended to the award it was shown that 1 bigha 7 biswas, occupied by Nalwa had been acquired and out of the petitioners holdings an area of 1 bigha 10 biswas had been acquired. Consequent to the award, possession was taken on the spot on 11/6/1971 but the Collector Land Acquisition did not take possession of the petitioners land and the other land comprised in Khasra No. 5881/2781/1433 measuring 2 bighas 17 biswas on the ground that the same was built up area. The petitioners claimed that they are In continuous possession of 3 bighas 4 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 5811/2781/1433. Irrespective of the fact that award was made by the Collector and out of the area occupied by the petitioners, 1 bighas 10 biswas of land had been shown to have been acquired. It is alleged that the petitioners are grossly handicapped in improving the land or taking any action for removal of any encroachment as the Collector was not taking possession and for that reason compensation was not being paid. In this back ground the aforementioned reliefs were prayed.

(3.) Respondents 1, 2 and 4 in their reply filed on the affidavit of Shri V.B. Pandey, Officer on Special Duty (Litigation) in Land and Building Department; Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi admitted that the petitioners are recorded as non-occupancy tenant in Khasra No. 5881/2781/1433 measuring 2 bigha 17 biswas and Nalwa is recorded as non-occupancy tenant for an area of 1 bigha 7 biswas in the said Khasra number. It is not disputed by respondents 1, 2 and 4 that acquisition proceedings were taken out for which award has already been made thereby ownership vests in the Government without any encumbrances. The petitioners have right only to receive compensation after delivery of possession. It is stated that possession of the land could not be taken due to built up area. Possession was also not handed over by the petitioners. Delhi Development Authority also filed its reply on the affidavit of Shri V.K. Shingal, Director (LM) reiterating the same stand as taken by respondents 1,2 and 4.