The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 24-12-2010 of
the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 3823-3825 of
2006. By the impugned Judgment, the High Court has set aside the
Order dated 20-4-2006 whereby the request of the first respondent
for de-notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 has been turned down. The impugned order passed by the
Government of NCT Delhi is a cryptic order mentioning only that
since the possession of the acquired land had been taken over by
the DDA on 22-2-2006, it was not possible for the D.D.A. to denotify the land under Section 48 of the Act. The High Court in the
impugned order, after examining the records, came to a finding that
there is no basis for the stand taken by the DDA that the acquired
land had already been taken into possession as per the proceedings
dated 22-2-2006 and thus observing, the matter has been remitted to
the DDA to consider the representation filed by the first
respondent afresh and to pass orders on merits. The relevant paras
of the impugned Order read as follows:-
“45. In the facts of the present case, we find that obviously
no physical possession of the land was taken over, but a
formality was completed only on the file. The representatives
of the respondents in the absence of any Halka Patwari just
went around the wall and completed a noting in the file and
this cannot be categorized as sufficient to constitute taking
over possession in view of what we have referred to aforesaid.
46. We thus come to the conclusion that no physical possession
was taken over of the site of the petitioners and it is only
when the demolition action was threatened at the site that the
petitioners approached this Court and status quo order was
passed.”
We have heard Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned Senior counsel
appearing for the appellant – DDA, Mr. R.K. Khanna, learned Senior
counsel and other learned counsel appearing for the
respondents for quite some time.
The award is of 1979. The fist respondent had already made a
futile attempt to challenge the acquisition proceedings before the
High Court in 1978. After passing the award in 1979, it appears JUDGMENT that the first respondent made another attempt to get the award
itself declared as null and void. It is seen that the matter
remained before the Sub-Judge, Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 82 of
1979 for quite some time. The suit was ultimately dismissed on 18-
8-2005. We have referred to this factual matrix only for the
purpose of indicating the history of the litigation spanning over
to more than three decades. Taking note of the purpose for which
the land is said to be required by the appellant, taking note of
the observations made by the High Court, taking note of the
interest pursued by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through the first
respondent and also taking note of the likely impact of the
subsequent legislation on land acquisition i.e. the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (New Land Acquisition Act) (30 of 2013),
we are of the considered view that it is in the interest of all to
put a quietus, otherwise it is certainly a good case for litigation
for another couple of decades. The disputed land which has been
lying unused for last around 40 years would continue to be so while
the land is badly required if not for the housing scheme for many
other public purposes. The learned counsel appearing for the South
Delhi Municipal Corporation has also submitted on the need for some
part if not whole of the land.
Therefore, we deem it a fit case, to balance equities between
the parties and to put an end to the entire litigation, be it for
the compensation, be it for de-notification or for that matter
anything touching on road pertaining to the disputed land, and thus
for doing complete justice, to invoke Article 142 of the JUDGMENT Constitution of India.
We direct the appellant – Delhi Development Authority to limit
its claim to 3000 square meters and leave the rest to the first
respondent. This indication of 3000 sq. mtrs we have made is on the
basis of the submission that for a group housing scheme, if at all
DDA ventures for that project, the minimum requirement is of 3000
sq. mtrs. However, we make it clear while leaving the balance to
the first respondent, the appellant should also see that the first
respondent gets access to the main road and that he is in a
position to utilize the property for any of the purposes as
permitted under law. We make it clear that there shall not be any
further claim available even by way of compensation to the first
respondent or anybody claiming through him for the land in question
or for the road portion. Therefore, there is no need for
disbursement of any compensation.
The Appeals are disposed of as above. No costs.