AMARJEET REWARI Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Yeeshu Jain has handed over the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The said counter affidavit is taken on record.

(2.) IN paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit an objection is taken that the petitioners have not placed on record any document showing their entitlement to file the present writ petition. Nor has there been any averment qua their right in respect of the right, title and interest concerning the lands in question. Paragraph 1 of the writ petition belies this statement inasmuch as it has been clearly stated therein that the petitioners are the legal heirs of late Shri Shyam Sunder Singh Rewari and late Shri Nand Kumar Rewari who had undivided interest in the subject land. The petitioners are the widows and sons, respectively, of late Shri Shyam Sunder Singh Rewari and late Shri Nand Kumar Rewari whose names clearly appear in the Khasra Girdawaris, copies of which have been placed as annexure P -2 (collectively) . Therefore, the objection as to the locus of the petitioners, which has been raised on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, is not supported by the pleadings and or the material on record. The petitioners are entitled to bring this petition in respect of the subject land.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , physical possession of the subject land was taken on 17.07.2013. The learned counsel for the respondents states that though compensation has not been paid in respect of Khasra No. 915/1, compensation was paid in respect of the other Khasra No. 923/1/2. He states that the said payment was made by virtue of a deposit made in court pursuant to an order passed by a Vacation Judge of this court in CM(Main) No. 1403/2013 on 30.12.2013. By virtue of that order the said CM(Main) , amongst others, was disposed of by recording that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land holders the cheque tendered in each petition would be treated as tendered to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi as of that date, i.e., 30.12.2013. According to Mr. Jain this amounts to payment of compensation. This issue has been settled by a decision of this court in Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. WP(C) No. 1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014 wherein this court held that compensation cannot be regarded as having been paid merely on the deposit of the same in court unless and until it has first been offered to the person interested and he has refused to accept the same. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the compensation amount was tendered in this court in the said CM(Main) without first being offered to the petitioners herein. Therefore, such deposit cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioners.