Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1292 (DEL)

DIWAN SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

2010-12-14

M.L.MEHTA, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2010
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the non-payment of compensation for his land acquired in Village Nangal Dewat, Delhi on which compensation has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector(LAC) vide an award. 2. A large tract of land was sought to be acquired in Village Nangal Dewat for purposes of expansion of the Airport consisting of 287 bighas and 9 biswas of land where abadi was located. It may be mentioned that there were certain other agricultural areas also acquired for which compensation has been paid and which does not form subject matter of the dispute. Some of the owners of the structures in land in the abadi areas challenged the acquisition proceedings. The Airport Authority of India (AAI in short) in its wisdom decided to settle the matter with the persons in the abadi area by making a special scheme for them of allotment of developed land in Rangpuri. This is stated by the counsel for the LAC to be a total area of 302 bighas. This settlement is recorded in the order dated 02.08.2001 in Civil Writ No.481/1982. The area was developed and plots have been handed over in Rangpuri and the land in village Nangal Dewat stands taken over by the AAI. 3. There was some delay in development of the land at Rangpuri and the occupants of the abadi did not want to shift until sufficient time was available with them to construct on their Rangpuri property as they would have to shift their houses. The question of extension of time came to be raised in a writ petition filed before this Court and even appeals filed thereafter. Orders were passed in LPA No.441/2007 and connected matters on 10.07.2007 in this behalf whereby the rights of both the parties were balanced and directions were passed with regard to the period of completion of construction on plot and shifting of the abadi people. In the said order categorical observations were made to the effect that these abadi people are entitled to receive compensation in lieu of their land in terms of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 („the said Act for short) in addition to the alternative plots being provided at Rangpuri. 4. In the said order categorical observations were made to the effect that these abadi people are entitled to receive compensation in lieu of their land in terms of provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 („the said Act for short) in addition to the alternative plots being provided at Rangpuri. 4. The stand of the respondents is that the amount of compensation for acquisition of the land in village Nangal Dewat was deposited with the LAC before settlement took place on giving alternative plots and the settlement envisages the grant of alternative plots in lieu of compensation. In a nutshell, the submission is that the abadi occupants cannot get both the plots and the compensation as developed plots free of cost are being handed over and the area earmarked for the abadi people is almost the same as the total area from where they were displaced. In this behalf a reference has been made to the provisions of Section 31(3) of the said Act, which reads as under:- “31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court.- (1)……………. (2)…………… (3)Notwithstanding anything in this section the Collector may, with the sanction of the [appropriate Government] instead of awarding a money compensation in respect of any land, make any arrangement with a person having a limited interest in such land, either by the grant of other lands in exchange, the remission of land- revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such other way as may be equitable having regard to the interests of the parties concerned.” 5. In view of the aforesaid situation, a Division Bench of this Court on 10.02.2010 considered it appropriate to make a reference to the larger Bench of this Court on the important question of law as to whether the occupants of the abadi are entitled to compensation in addition to the plots made over to them free of costs keeping in mind the provisions of Section 31(3) of the said Act. The Bench noted that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court referred to aforesaid had made the observations in view of the context of extension of time for leaving out the abadi people, but in order to settle the controversy, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. 6. The Bench noted that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court referred to aforesaid had made the observations in view of the context of extension of time for leaving out the abadi people, but in order to settle the controversy, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. 6. The aforesaid reference has been answered by the Full Bench of this Court presided over by the Honble Chief Justice in terms of the order dated 18.11.2010 where it has been categorically held that the observations made in LPA No.441/2007 were on the facts of that case and does not state the law that a person whose land is acquired is entitled to an alternative accommodation or site as a matter of right under the said Act. The same would depend upon the language employed under any Rule or Scheme if framed by the State Government. We may once again emphasize that it was already noted in the order dated 10.02.2010 that the scheme of the AAI is not to be mixed with the scheme of the DDA for allotment of the alternative plots on large scale acquisition of land as that scheme has own terms and conditions where plots of small size are allotted for consideration as an additional measure of amelioration of the problem arising from acquisition of land. Not only that, the same is applicable only to land acquired for the planned development of Delhi by DDA. Further, the right is only of consideration of such an application as per a Full Bench judgment in Ramanand vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1994 Delhi 29. 7. We may also notice that the cheque for compensation was brought by the LAC in the Court and was directed to be deposited in the name of the Registrar and to be kept in an FDR for a period of one year to be kept renewed until contrary directions are issued. 8. In our considered view, the scheme framed by AAI was with the objective of expediting the public project of the establishment of the airport and in view of the obstruction caused by the respondents rather than getting into a prolonged litigation, the AAI in its wisdom decided to rehabilitate the villagers on a land of their choice free of costs giving them almost similar areas as was occupied by them in their earlier place. This was also in terms of the mandate of Section 31(3) of the said Act which permits the same in lieu of compensation. 9. We may also notice that even under the Scheme of the DDA for allotment of alternative plots on large scale acquisition of lands, the plots are not allotted necessarily co-relatable to the size of the land acquired and further the persons who are allotted such plots have to pay for such alternative plots albeit at concessional rates. Even in this respect, the Full Bench of this Court in Ramanands case (supra) has held that it is not a matter of right. 10. In the present case, the rehabilitation has taken place in an area approximate to the original area of occupation. Thus money has been spent for making that land available, for the development of that land and, in fact, the occupants of the village which was being acquired were not even willing to shift till full development takes place. It cannot thus be said that a scheme envisages both rehabilitation to the villagers and compensation. It is an either/or situation. The petitioner having already taken a decision to occupy the land was not entitled to compensation. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a reference to the meeting held on 16.06.1982 in respect of the matter in issue and the decision taken in the said meeting. A reading of the minutes, however, shows that all that has been said is that an alternative site will be located to shift the villagers and persuade the residents of the village to accept rehabilitation programme offered to them. In respect of the plea of discrimination advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, we may make it clear that though some persons may have been granted both compensation and land, it is open to the respondent-authorities to take appropriate steps to rectify the position arising from such mistaken payment. 12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 13. The amount deposited in the Court be released to the LAC with interest accrued thereon and this amount will then be made over to R-3/AAI by the LAC.