9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cquired by the Government to enable the Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter, 'the Board') to shift and establish its grain market in Narela. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1894'), was issued on 30.10.1963. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 10.01.1969 and the Award, determining the compensation, was made on 19.09.1986. The acquired land included an extent of 6 bighas and 10 biswas situated in Khasra Nos. 296, 298 and 303 of Village Mamoorpur. Bhagwan Devi claimed ownership over this smaller extent under registered sale deeds of the years 1959 and 1971. Possession of the acquired land was taken and handed over on 22.09.1986 to the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Narela, under the control of the Board. This ostensibly included the extent of 6 bighas and 10 biswas claimed by Bhagwan Devi. She, then, filed W.P. No. 149 of 1987 before the Delhi High Court challenging the acquisition of her land. 3. It is at this stage that the story took a curious turn. The Board resolved to settle the matter out of Court with Bhagwan Devi by releasing and returning to her half of the acquired e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ole matter. This was brought to the notice of the Delhi High Court by filing an application to recall the order dated 05.10.1988 passed in W.P. No. 149 of 1987. Bhagwan Devi had also filed applications seeking implementation of the agreement dated 30.09.1988. The applications were taken up together and disposed of by the Delhi High Court on 06.08.2002. By the said order, the High Court left it open to Bhagwan Devi to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law and permitted the Board to raise all such objections as were available to it, including the one mentioned in its application. 6. The turn of events then became 'curiouser and curiouser', to put it in the words of Lewis Carroll's Alice. Having slept over the matter for two years, by way of notice dated 30.09.2004, Bhagwan Devi sought 'arbitration' under clause (k) of the agreement dated 30.09.1988! She then filed an application, in Arb. P. No. 278 of 2004, seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The same was allowed by the Delhi High Court on 17.05.2006 and a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court was appointed. The Board contended before the Arbitrator that the agreement dated 30.09.1988 was void ab initio and could not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduce Markets Act, 1939 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1939'), was in force in Delhi. As per Section 16 thereof, if the Government was of the opinion that any land was needed for the purposes of that Act, it could proceed to acquire it under the provisions of the Act of 1894 and when such land vested in the Government, it was to be transferred by the Government to the Market Committee, on payment by the said Market Committee of the compensation awarded and of all other charges incurred on account of the acquisition, and on such transfer, the land would vest in that Market Committee. Notably, this was the legal regime holding the field when the notification and declaration were issued, in 1963 and 1969 respectively, for acquisition of the 33 acres of land, which included the subject extent of 6 bighas and 10 biswas. 11. However, when the agreement dated 30.09.1988 was executed, the Delhi Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1976 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1976'), was the extant legislation as the Act of 1939 stood repealed thereby. The Board was constituted under Section 5 of the Act of 1976 and in terms of Section 5(3) thereof, it was to be a body corporate, having perpetua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Significantly, the power of withdrawal from an acquisition, under Section 48 of the Act 1894, can be exercised by the Government only in respect of an acquisition where possession of the land has not been taken. Therefore, it was not open even to the Government to withdraw from the acquisition of the subject land after possession was taken over on 22.09.1986, evidenced by proper documentation. 14. In such a situation, the question that arises is whether the Board, for whose benefit the land was acquired, could have achieved the equivalent of such withdrawal by entering into an agreement with Bhagwan Devi for returning part of the acquired land. Further, the question would also arise whether the Board could exercise such power when there was no document of conveyance in its favour in respect of this land. The statutory scheme of the laws applicable to the Board at different points of time, set out supra, speaks to the contrary as it manifests that there must be a document of conveyance for the Board to acquire and hold such land. Admittedly, no such document was ever issued by the Government actually transferring the subject land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
