W.P. (C) No. 12007-10/2006 Page 1 8. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12007-10/2006 Date of decision: 20th May, 2009 BALENDU LOHIYA & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Ms. Geeta Luthra & Ms. Aakanksha Munjhal, Advocates. versus DELHI METRO RAIL CORPN. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Amit Sethi, Advocate for the Intervener. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? O R D E R % 1. The petitioners-Mr. Balendu Lohiya and others have filed the present writ petition claiming that respondents, viz., Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Land and Building Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and Land Acquisition Collector (Central District) had only acquired 194.88 square metres of land but took possession of additional 28.45 square metres of land on 7th September, 2001. The petitioners have claimed market value W.P. (C) No. 12007-10/2006 Page 2 of the extra land with damages with effect from 7th September, 2001. 2. This Court vide order dated 20th August, 2008 had directed the Land Acquisition Collector to visit the property and submit a report as to how much land has been acquired and the actual area, which was in possession of respondent No. 1-Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. 3. Pursuant thereto, a report has been filed by the Land Acquisition Collector along with the site proceedings. As per the report, respondent No. 1- Delhi Metro Rail Corporation is in possession of 216.08 square metres, after excluding the portion shown in red as per site plan at internal page 4 of the report. No objections have been filed to the said report and the said report has been accepted. In terms of the said report, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation is in possession of extra area measuring 21.20 square metres, which has not been acquired and for which compensation has not been paid. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the intervener state that they are not interested in asking or calling upon the respondent No. 1- Delhi Metro Rail Corporation to return the extra unacquired land because the unacquired land is situated in the middle of the property. Building has been constructed on the land. They claim that respondent No. 1- Delhi Metro Rail Corporation should pay compensation for acquisition of land after following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act and also pay compensation for being in possession of the unacquired land W.P. (C) No. 12007-10/2006 Page 3 since 7th September, 2001. 5. In view of the admitted position and the location of the unacquired extra land, which is in the middle of the property on which a three storeyed building has been raised, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., Government of NCT of Delhi and the Land Acquisition Collector are directed to take steps in accordance with law to acquire the 21.20 square metres of land as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 6. On the question of compensation, I am inclined to follow the order dated 13th may, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 165-169/2004, Maha Singh and Others versus Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, wherein the Land Acquisition Collector in question was asked to examine and quantify the case of compensation in accordance with law after giving opportunities to the parties concerned to lead oral and documentary evidence. The said plea is also acceptable to the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the intervener. 7. There is a dispute between petitioners and the intervener as to ownership and right to claim compensation. This dispute cannot be resolved and settled in this writ petition. The petitioners and the intervener are at liberty to invoke and file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 8. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the proprietary rights W.P. (C) No. 12007-10/2006 Page 4 of the petitioners or the intervener to claim compensation. It is also clarified that in case any third party makes any claim, the same will be determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. The writ petition is disposed of. DASTI. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 20, 2009 VKR