PREM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these petitions, the relief claimed is identical which is for a declaration that acquisition proceedings in respect of land measuring 1 Bigha 5 Biswas forming part of Khasra No.253 min (3- 16) (hereafter mentioned as "suit property") in the revenue estate of Village Saidulajaib, New Delhi lapsed in view of the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter referred to as "2013 Act").

(2.) In W.P.(C) 7278/2016, the petitioner claims to have acquired the properties pursuant to Power of Attorney executed on 31.05.2007. He has also relied upon the partnership deed dated 01.02.1989 of one M/s Jac Brothers, Amritsar and Khatoni of 1998-99.

(3.) In W.P.(C) 7275/2016, the petitioner claims title on the basis of other documents, i.e., Power of Attorney document dated 19.08.2011 executed by Jasjit Walia of Amritsar in favour of one Jagan Lal, resident of Badar Pur and a second registered Power of Attorney dated 27.08.2011 executed by Jagan Lal in his (petitioner's) favour. Both these Power of Attorneys (in W.P.(C) 7275/2016) were registered in Uttar Pradesh. The common contention of the petitioners is that the respondents have violated the legislative mandate of Section 24 (2) of the said Act. In these cases the suit lands along with a large tract of land was notified for the planned development of Delhi, i.e., a public purpose under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 05.11.1980. On 21.05.1985, a declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was issued. After considering all the materials produced before him as well as the contentions of the land owners, the Collector made his Award on 20.05.1987 (Award No.13/87-88). It is alleged that the petitioners are in physical possession of the suit lands and till date have neither been paid nor offered any compensation. Learned counsel urges that in these circumstances having regard to the law declared by the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation v Harakchand Misrimal Solanki 2014 (3) SCC 183, Union of India and Ors. v. Shiv Raj and Ors ., (2014) 6 SCC 564 and number of subsequent rulings, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed. It is highlighted that the petitioner's rights to secure the declaration in terms of Supreme Court judgment cannot also be denied in view of the later judgment of the Supreme Court in Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust and Another (2017) 6 SCC 751.