LAWS(DLH)-2012-2-507

HARDWARI LAL Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

Decided On February 27, 2012
HARDWARI LAL Appellant
V/S
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR/ADM (W) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claims to be Bhumidars of the land measuring 22 bighas and 18 biswas of the land situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Mundka, Delhi allotted to the petitioners in the consolidation proceedings. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the said Act" for short) was issued on 21.03.2003 seeking to acquire 1703 bighas and 18 biswas of the land situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Mundka, Delhi including the land of the petitioners for the public purpose of Rohini Residential Scheme. The declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was issued on 19.03.2004 and award was passed bearing no.3/D.C./W/2005-06 dated 27.01.2006 determining the market value of the land of the petitioners and the other land owners. The possession of the land of the petitioners is stated to have been taken over under Section 16 of the said Act by R-1 on 19-20.01.2007 and 12.04.2007. The petitioners moved an application seeking release of compensation in their favour, but one Sh.Atma Ram filed objections dated 14.06.2007 before the Land Acquisition Collector/R-1. It was the case of Sh.Atma Ram that the petitioners had got more land during the consolidation proceedings than was due to them at his cost and that the land of the petitioners belong to the Gaon Sabha. However, R-1 disposed of the objections on 01.10.2007 finding that there was no merit in the objections and there was no prima facie dispute of apportionment within the meaning of Section 30 of the said Act. The R-1 directed release of compensation in favour of the petitioners.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners now started as Sh.Atma Ram filed proceedings before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi as Case No. 204/2007-CA under Section 42 of The East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 ("the Consolidation Act" for short) seeking implementation of certain documents which the petitioners claimed were forged. In those proceedings, the LAC was also impleaded as a party apart from the petitioners. The Financial Commissioner in his wisdom admitted the petition and ordered maintenance of status quo. These proceedings were disposed of by the Financial Commissioner vide Order dated 21.02.2008. The Financial Commissioner issued direction to the Deputy Commissioner (West) to enquire into the objections raised by Sh.Atma Ram qua the issue of consolidation and submit a report to the Court. It is important to note that para 14 of the order contains this direction and towards the end of para 13 it was observed as under:

(3.) The result of the aforesaid order was that the compensation was still not disbursed to the petitioners.