'Can't allow pavement to be used for any purpose except walking’, says SC; asks DDA to act against encroachers

A citizen has lost his valuable property by way of compulsory acquisition. The compulsory acquisition has been made for a public purpose and therefore, the appellant and all the concerned authorities cannot allow the pavement to be used for any purpose except for allowing people to walk, observed Supreme Court. Reports ETV Bharat's Sumit Saxena

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has expressed its discontent on encroachment by vendors on a pavement built on a land, which was compulsorily acquired for public purposes and told Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to take action in accordance with the law.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol said: “A citizen has lost his valuable property by way of compulsory acquisition. The compulsory acquisition has been made for a public purpose and therefore, the appellant and all the concerned authorities cannot allow the pavement to be used for any purpose except for allowing people to walk”.

The bench examined the photographs of the metro depot constructed on the acquired land which were produced along with an affidavit dated 15th April 2023. “We noticed that a part of the pavement abutting the metro depot which is a part of the acquired land has been already occupied by a car clinic and other vendors”, the bench noted.

The apex court made this observation while considering an appeal by the DDA in a matter pertaining to land acquisition Kalindi Kunj metro depot. The top court said: “We hope and trust that either the appellant takes immediate action on this behalf or calls upon the authorities empowered to take action to do the needful immediately in accordance with the law”.

In May 2015, one Jagan Singh filed a writ petition contending that in view of sub-­section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed.

The Delhi High Court by a judgment dated 11th August 2016, by relying upon a decision of the apex court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors, held that sub­Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act will apply as the compensation has not been paid to the first respondent (Singh) although physical possession of the acquired land has been taken over by the appellant.

The HC, however, directed the appellant to pay compensation to the first respondent in accordance with the 2013 Act. The top court noted that in the present case, as recorded in the impugned judgment, there is no dispute that the possession of the acquired land was taken over on 19th January, 2006.

The acquired land has been utilised for Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) for its car maintenance depot at Kalindi Kunj under the MRTS Project (Phase­III). The bench said: "Though, the appeal succeeds, considering the conduct of the appellant (DDA), we saddle the appellant with costs of ₹50,000”.

The top court set aside the HC judgment and directed DDA to pay costs quantified at ₹ 50,000 to Singh within a period of one month. “If the compensation determined as per the Award made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act has not been yet paid till date, the appellant and /or the second respondent shall pay the same to the first respondent (Singh) in the manner provided in clause (d) as above within a period of one month from today”, the top court said.