SHIV CHARAN Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. Ravindra Bhat, J. The petitioner sought the quashing of acquisition proceedings initiated through the notification dated 27.10.1999 under Sec. 4 read with sections 17 (1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereafter referred to variously as "the 1894 Act" or "the old Act"]. These proceedings were filed on 29.05.2013 when the old Act was in force. With the subsequent repeal of that enactment and the bringing into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("the 2013 Act" hereafter) with effect from 01.01.2014, amendments to the petition were sought and granted; the fresh claim in the amended proceedings is for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land measuring 1278 square yards in Khasra No. 62/19/1 situated in the revenue estate of Village Pehladpur Bangar [hereafter referred to as "the suit property"] has lapsed.

(2.) The present proceedings were initiated in the name of Sh. Shiv Charan through one Sh. Ashok Kumar Sehgal, who claims to be his Power of Attorney (PoA) holder. This PoA is based upon a registered document executed on 04.03.1994 by Shiv Charan in respect of the suit lands. Shiv Charan, in turn, claims to be the purchaser of the said suit lands from the original owners - Kaptan, Parmeshwari Devi, Shyam Dutt, Sudhir, Asarfi and Sukhdei. Some of the original vendees were children of Jai Narain and some others were children of other co-sharers. The suit property was part of a larger tract of land, sought to be acquired for the public purpose of development of the Rohini Residential Scheme formulated by the Delhi Development Authority ("DDA" hereafter).

(3.) Claiming urgency, the hearing to land owners under Sec. 5-A of the 1894 Act was dispensed with by the initial notification. Dispensing with the hearing became the subject matter of writ proceedings that ultimately culminated in the order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3813/2007 [Ram Dhari Jindal Vs. UOI and Ors.]. The petitioner had alleged that the Supreme Court's order dated 21.02012, no doubt, granted liberty to issue declaration under Sec. 6 but contends that having regard to the facts of the case the declaration issued was beyond the time permitted.