Page 1

1

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

Page 2

2

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

Page 3

3

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

Page 4

4

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.