Gita Mittal, J.@mdashThis writ petition makes challenge to a notification dated 3rd September, 1957 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and
a declaration u/s 6 thereunder dated 3rd April, 1964 in respect of the land over which the petitioner claims ownership which forms a part of
Khasra No. 601/483, village Hamayunpur in the Union Territory of Delhi inter alia Government of NCT of Delhi.
2. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition to the extent necessary are briefly noticed hereafter. The petitioner claims to have purchased by
a sale deed dated 18th November, 1950, 556 sq. yards of land out of 2 bighas of land owned by Sardar Prithipal Singh in Khasra No. 601/483 in
village Hamayunpur. This deed evidences that the plot which was purchased by the petitioner was bounded on the North by the land of Mr. A.K.
Ghatak; South by 16 feet road; West by 16 feet road and; on the East by the land of Sardar Prithipal Singh. It is urged that the possession of Om
Prakash Sabharwal, who had filed the writ petition, is evidenced in the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 by the Revenue record which is in the nature
of Khasra Girdavari drawn up in the year 1987. This revenue record reflects the petitioner (Om Prakash Sabharwal) as being in possession of 0.5
biswas of land in khasra No. 601/483/30/1.
3. It appears that on 3rd September, 1957, the then Delhi Administration issued a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing
to acquire 203 acres of land in village Hamayunpur which inter alia included Khasra No. 601/483. This notification was succeeded by a
declaration u/s 6 of the Statute which was made on 3rd April, 1964. It is noteworthy that the declaration was made in respect of the land
admeasuring 9 bigha and 12 biswa in village Hamayunpur which included inter alia Khasra No. 601/483/1/1, 601/483/2 and 602/483/2.
4. All the parties before the Court have placed reliance on the Award No.2121 dated 29th June, 1968 which came to be made by the Land
Acquisition Collector in respect of the land which was the subject matter of the afore noticed notification and declaration. So far as the land in
respect of which this writ petition is concerned, the award has recorded that an area measuring 8 biswa out of the Khasra No. 601/483/1/1 (00-
03) and 601/483/2 (00-05), on which the house of Sh.S.P.Sen Gupta stands, is excluded from the proceedings in accordance with the D.O.Letter
No. F.7(52)/62-L&H dated 29th February, 1968 from the Land & Building Department, Delhi Administration.
5. We may notice that the said Award has also noted at serial No.3 that Mr.Om Prakash Sabharwal (the petitioner herein) was the owner of land
measuring 5 biswas in Khasra No. 601/483/2 and that one Revti Kumar s/o Shiv Dass Ghatak was recorded as owner of 3 Biswas of land which
is also included in Khasra No. 601/483/1/1.
6. The perusal of the record of the claims made before the Land and Acquisition Collector shows that Om Prakash Sabharwal, who filed a claim in
respect of the said land in Khasra No. 601/483, had demanded compensation @ Rs.35/-per sq. yards without furnishing any proof thereof.
7. We may also notice that one Sh.S.P.Sen Gupta for himself as well as on behalf of Sh.Krishna Parshad Sen Gupta had demanded a
compensation for 400 sq. yards out of Khasra No. 601/483/2, 601/483/1 and 602/483/2 @ Rs.100/-per Sq.yards for the land and Rs. 40,000/-
for the structures. Sh.S.K.Ghatak, had filed a claim for 500 sq. yards of land out of Khasra No. 601/483 @ Rs.30/-per sq. yards.
On a consideration of the material placed before him, we find that the Land Acquisition Collector was of the opinion that fair and reasonable
market price for the land would be @ Rs.5000/-per bigha and he directed that the same be awarded.
8. The petitioner places reliance on several communications addressed to the authorities seeking denotification of the land which was owned by
him. In this behalf, a copy of a letter dated 27th June, 1968 has been placed wherein reference is made to 566 Sq. yards of land in Khasra No.
601/483, Village Hamayunpur which is owned by him and another plot of land measuring 500 sq. yards owned by Sh. A.K. Ghatak. This letter
records that ""a part of the area in these two plots is built-up and that the same has been released from the acquisition in the name of Sh.Sen Gupta
and the number of this plot is B-4/161 of Safdarjang Scheme"". The petitioner requested de-notification on the ground that the entire area of the
plot under reference be de-notified and not the built-up portion alone.
9. Mr.J.P.Sengh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that this communication was followed by reminders dated 3rd October,
1975, 7th May, 1976, 3rd February, 1970 and 18th February, 1977 and other requests to the respondent to denotify the said land inter alia for
the reason that the petitioner therein is owning no other piece of land or property in Delhi.
10. Our attention is drawn to the communications from the various authorities in the Delhi Administration including a letter dated 21st December,
1969 from the Assistant Housing Commissioner(I), Delhi Administration, Delhi who informed the petitioner in response to his letter dated 27th
June, 1968 that the petitioner''s request for release of land from acquisition could not be acceded to and that in case the petitioner does not own
any other residential house in Delhi, his request for allotment of an alternative plot on usual terms and conditions would be considered. The same
stand was reiterated in the subsequent communication from the respondent.
11. The petitioner contends that out of 556 sq. yards of land in Khasra No. 601/483 which was owned by him, by virtue of an award No. 2121
dated 29th June, 1968, the respondents were required to acquire only 250 sq. yards (5 biswas) of land and that he continued to remain the owner
in possession of remaining 306 sq. yards of land. The petitioner further contends that no action for acquisition of land has been taken and that the
petitioner had sought permission to raise construction on his land.
12. It was urged that no response to the petitioner''s request for permission to construction on this land was received. However, on 19th
November, 1987 when the petitioner''s father visited the site, he found that one Sh. Naresh an agent of Smt. Gurnam Kaur was intending to
encroach upon the land of the petitioner and start construction activity thereon.
13. In this background, the petitioner apprehending that the respondents were attempting to take forcible possession of his land in violation of
Section 11(A) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 and transfer title in the land to Smt.Gurnam Kaur, respondent No.6, filed the
instant writ petition urging that there is no acquisition in respect of the land admeasuring 350 sq. yards over which the petitioner has title by virtue of
the Sale Deed dated 18th November, 1950. It was further submitted that such acquisition after 30 years of the issuance of the notification dated
3rd September, 1957 of the statute was illegal and no reason for the inordinate delay from the date of the publication of the notification directing
acquisition was disclosed which would have therefore lapsed. While challenging the notification dated 3rd September, 1957 and declaration dated
3rd April, 1964, the petitioner has made a prayer for restraining the respondents from interfering in his occupation/possession and right, title and
interest in the subject land.
14. When the writ petition came up for hearing, by an order passed on 9th December, 1987, this Court recorded the statement of the counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner would not carry out any construction activity on the disputed land without the permission of this Court. This court
also restrained the respondents from interfering in the petitioner''s possession and directed the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to the
title of the petitioner. Respondent No. 6 was also restrained from carrying out any construction activity on the disputed land till the next date of
hearing.
15. The Delhi Development Authority has filed a counter affidavit on record dated 7th March, 2006 explaining the position with regard to the
possession of the land vide award No.2121 dated 29th June, 1968. It is also pointed out that the unacquired land out of Khasra No. 601/483
consists of the area bearing No.601/483/2 (5 biswas) and that this was in the nature of a passage ""thoroughfare, which was being used by public
for the purposes of passing on and of which was a vacant land"". The DDA has enclosed a copy of the site plan to clarify the factual position.
It is noteworthy that the DDA had also pointed out that unacquired land was in Khasra No. 601/482 which included the built-up portion which is
in the nature of a house of Sh.S.P.Sen Gupta which was left from acquisition as noted in the Award No. 2121. The DDA stated that in the light of
the facts mentioned in the affidavit, it appeared that the petitioner''s land had been encroached by Shri S.P. Sen Gupta in the year 1993.
16. It appears that the petitioner had filed a contempt petition in the year 1993 against the officials of the DDA premised on the contention that
they were permitting construction on the area owned by him. In the contempt petition being CCP No.292/1993, the petitioner contended that the
officials of the DDA, by permitting construction, interfered with the petitioner''s possession in violation of the order dated 9th December, 1987
which was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. This petition came to be disposed of by the court by an order passed on 16th October,
1996 wherein the learned Single Judge noted that in the writ petition it was the plea of the petitioner that one Smt.Gurnam Kaur was claiming to be
the owner of the land whereas the petitioner had not sold the land to her. The learned Single Judge consequently held that so far as the DDA was
concerned, it was clear from the beginning that this portion was not acquired by the DDA and it was lying vacant. In this background, contempt
notice was discharged.
17. We find that the claim by the writ petitioner in this case revolves around the basic question as to the location of the unacquired portion of 306
sq. yards of land as per the sale deed dated 18th November, 1950. The DDA has contended that this land was not the subject matter of the
Award No. 2121. The petitioner and the DDA have filed the site plans on record which show conflicting locations with regard to the said land in
Khasra No. 601/483.
18. At this stage, it becomes necessary also to notice the stand of the Land & Acquisition Collector on record. In an affidavit dated 30th March,
2006 filed by the Land & Acquisition Collector, it has been explained that as per the revenue records, the land in question forms part of khasra
No.30 which before division was admeasuring 8 bigha 14 biswas. It is explained in this affidavit that Khasra No. 30 was divided into different
khasra numbers including khasra no. 601/483/30 (1-1), 602/483/30 (0-19), 484/30 (4-1), 485/30 (1-16) and 486/30 (1-00).
19. It is also pointed out that so far as the present case is concerned, the land in question falls under khasra No. 601/483/30/2 which was notified
in the declaration dated 3rd April, 1964 u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The total area in respect of which this declaration was made measuring
9 bigha 12 biswa including the land falling in Khasra No. 601/483/1 min, 601/483/2, 602/483/2 besides others. The built-up structure built on the
land measuring 0-8 biswa belonging to Sh.S.P.Sen Gupta were left out of the Award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector. In view of the
discrepancies with regard to the subject land, the aks shijra was prepared which has been placed on record.
20. Hereafter, the parties are at variance. It transpires that so far as the identification and demarcation of the subject land is concerned, it is
contended by the Land & Acquisition Collector in his afore-noticed deposition that after issuance of notice dated 3rd March, 1968, the
demarcation proceedings were conducted on 6th March, 1968 in the presence of Sh.S.P.Sen Gupta, Om Prakash Sabharwal and Sh. A.K.
Ghatak. These proceedings have been placed before us. According to the respondent no.2, Sh.S.P.Sen Gupta had allegedly purchased the land
measuring 400 sq. yards (0-8 biswa) in Khasra No. 602/483 and constructed a house. It has further been pointed out that no entry or mutation in
the revenue record in his favor with regard to such purchase was effected at any point of time. However, during the demarcation proceedings, it
was found that the house which was constructed by Sh.S.P.Sen Gupta did not stand in Khasra No.602/483 but was actually standing in Khasra
No.601/483/1(0-3) and 601/483/2(0-5).
21. These submissions on behalf of Land Acquisition Collector have been vehemently disputed by Mr. J.P. Sengh, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner contending that the alleged notice dated 3rd March, 1968 was never served upon him. It is further pointed out that, upon inspection of
the record during the pendency of the writ petition, it has been found that the notice only calls upon the petitioner to produce his documents of title
before the issuing authority. The petitioner vehemently challenges the submission that any demarcation proceedings were undertaken in his
presence.
22. We may notice herein that Mr.Sanjeev Anand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7, who claims to be the successor in interest of
the land/property which was purchased and owned by Sh.S.P.Sen Gupta, has also challenged the demarcation proceedings dated 6th March,
1968 and contended that the findings recorded by the Land & Acquisition Collector are totally incorrect.
23. The above narration shows that the only fact on which the parties to the present writ petition agree is the fact that 05 biswas of land over which
the petitioner is asserting title, was not the subject matter of any acquisition proceedings taken by the land acquiring authorities under the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, there is a dispute with regard to the location of the subject land as well as the person who is in
possession therein. Nothing has been placed before us which would evidence the possession by either the Land Acquisition Collector or the DDA
over the subject land.
24. The contention and claim before us, therefore, is premised on a wholly disputed question of fact which cannot appropriately be looked into by
this court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The claim of the petitioner is contested by the Land
Acquisition Collector contending that the respondent No. 7 is in possession of the land over which the petitioner asserts title, which is disputed by
the petitioner who has in fact laid a claim against the statutory authorities.
25. Be that as it may, these are matters which require extensive evidence and are areas into which we cannot enter upon in these proceedings. The
record would disclose that despite the pleas taken by the respondents on record at no point of time, the petitioner made a prayer for appointment
of a local commissioner or a demarcation even till date. Today, 55 years since notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and 23 years since
filing of the writ petition have passed. It is submitted that the entire area is heavily built up. It has also been pointed out that nature of the land has
changed and permanent marks may not be traceable so as to carry out a meaningful demarcation to even identify which would be essential to
resolve the controversy.
26. We may notice that in the sale deed dated 18th November, 1950, the land was identified by boundaries. However, no site plan was enclosed
therewith so as to identify the actual position of this land which formed part of the larger khasra.
For these reasons, we are unable to grant any relief in the present writ petition for the reason that it raises disputed questions of fact and is
therefore hereby dismissed. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case, the rival contentions or the claim of the
petitioner. In case, any other remedy in accordance with law is available to the petitioner to seek relief and redressal, it shall be open to the
petitioner to invoke the same in accordance with law.
