$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5395/2010 & CM No.10636/2010 (for stay) SUKHBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. AND 15+ W.P.(C) 5398/2010 & CM No.10638/2010 (for stay) SMT. RAJ BALA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. AND 16+ W.P.(C) 5399/2010 & CM No.10639/2010 (for stay) SMT. JAGWATI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1/6 O R D E R % 15.09.2011 1. The three petitions have been filed for restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in village Neb Sarai which the petitioners claim to be in their possession. The petitioners admit that the said land has been the subject matter of acquisition and award has been published. They however state that they have neither received any compensation nor have they been dispossessed from the land as yet. They claim, that possession of other adjoining lands which were also acquired vide the same notification and with respect whereto also award has been published, has also not been taken; that the acquired land has already been built upon and the colony of Sainik Farms has come up thereon and thus the entire purpose of acquisition stands frustrated and thus they are not liable to be disposed in pursuance to acquisition. The petitioners also claim to have made representations under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for de-notification of the land. They, in alternative to the above relief claim the relief of restraining their dispossession from the said land till at least the decision on their representations. 2. Notice of the petitions was issued but no interim relief against dispossession granted till now. 2/6 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the possession of the land was taken over on 31st August, 2005. The respondents along with their counter affidavit have filed the possession report of the said date. 4. The counsel for the petitioners however contends that possession in fact has not been so taken over and seeks adjournment to verify the correctness and genuineness of the possession taken report filed by the respondents. He also contends that since the petitioners continue in possession at site, the said possession taken report cannot be genuine. It is further demonstrated from the photographs filed along with the petitions that the structures /buildings of the petitioners on the land continue to exist and the petitioners continue to be in use and occupation thereof. Reference is also made to the revenue records to contend that the possession of the petitioners of the said land continues to be recorded. 5. The respondents along with the counter affidavit have also filed Khatoni of the year 1998-99. The counsel for the petitioners on the basis thereof states that even as per the said Khatoni, copies whereof were obtained on 21st September, 2010, the names of the petitioners continue to exist. 3/6 6. The counsel for the petitioners refers to Corporation of the City of Bangalore v. M. Papaiah AIR 1989 SC 1809 to contend that the Revenue record is not a record of title and thus the possession taken report cannot be relied on. 7. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioners refers to:- a. Rajbir Solanki, Dr. v. Union of India 2008 (101) DRJ 577 (DB); b. Kamaljeet Singh v. State 2008 (101) DRJ 582; c. Nagin Chand Godha v. Union of India 2003 (70) DRJ 721 (DB). and in each of which it has been held that after symbolic possession in pursuance to acquisition is taken, even if the person to whom the land belonged earlier continues in possession; he enjoys the possession as a trustee on behalf of the public at large and that by itself cannot be considered to be a ground to contend that possession is not taken. It was further held that it is the duty of the person who is occupying the land to look after the property and to see that the property is not defaced or devalued and he cannot subsequently come to the Court to say that actual possession is not taken and therefore he should be protected and land be de- notified. 4/6 8. The matter is thus squarely covered by the dicta aforesaid. 9. The counsel for the petitioners next contends that a direction should be issued to the Lt. Governor, Delhi to consider the representations of the petitioners for de-notification. However Section 48 is clear in this regard. The representation for de-notification can be made only so long as the possession has not been taken. The representation in these cases have been admittedly made after the date aforesaid on which possession was taken over. In the judgments aforesaid, it has also been held that after possession has been taken over, any application/representation for de-notification is misconceived. Thus the direction sought, also cannot be issued. 10. The counsel for the petitioners has with reference to the Notification dated 5th February, 1999 has contended that certain other lands simultaneously acquired have been de-notified. However the present petition is not for challenging the acquisition but to protect possession and which possession is illegal in terms of the judgments aforesaid of the Division Bench. Thus the argument of some other land having been denotified, is misconceived. 11. The counsel for the petitioners at this stage seeks to withdraw the petitions. 5/6 12. After having taken repeated adjournments and having made an attempt to keep the petitions alive and after having argued, the same cannot be permitted to be so withdrawn to re-litigate before some other Fora. 13. There is thus no merit in the petitions; the same are dismissed. No order as to costs. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 pp 6/6