DELHI DEVT.AUTHORITY Vs. PRITHI PAL SINGH & ORS.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 2204-2206 of 2012, Judgment Date: Feb 18, 2016

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      Civil Appeal  No(s).  2204-2206/2012

DELHI DEVT.AUTHORITY                                            Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS

PRITHI PAL SINGH & ORS.                                        Respondent(s)

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J

      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
de-notify 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 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 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.

                                                     ......................J
                                                              KURAIN JOSEPH)



                                                     ......................J
                                                     (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
NEW DELHI;
18TH  FEBRUARY, 2016.