JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this petition with prayer to quash the Notifications dated 25th March, 1988, 21st April, 1988 and 13th May, 1988 issued by the respondents under Sections 4, 6 and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) respectively. However, as at the time of arguments petitioner did not press this relief and confined his arguments to the payment of compensation and other relief, namely, allotment of alternate plot, we are not required to state the facts of this matter in detail. Necessary facts for the purpose of determination of aforesaid issues would only be noticed.
2. Petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest are the owners of land measuring 1 Bigha 2 Biswas in village Nangal Raya. There was certain acquisition proceedings in respect of certain lands of this village. However, even when land belonging to the petitioners was not subject matter of those acquisition proceedings, the DDA unauthorisedly took possession thereof some time in the year 1975 and allotted the same to other persons as commercial plots. Petitioners made representation against taking of such illegal possession by the DDA to various authorities, including the Lt. Governor. However, no action was taken. Sh. Tej Ram, who was the owner, died on 25th January, 1987. He had executed a Will in favor of the petitioners and on his death the lands in question devolved upon the petitioners and were duly mutated in their name. In respect of this plea Jamabandi has been filed by the petitioners. On 13th March, 1987 petitioners again made representation requesting that in lieu of the lands illegally taken possession by the DDA the petitioners may be allotted equivalent land in the area free of cost. However, no action was taken on this representation also and on the other hand, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 25th March, 1988 in respect of the lands in question. This was followed by Notification issued under Section 17(1) of the Act invoking urgency clause and dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A of the Act on 21st April, 1988. A declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also published which was followed by notice dated 13th May, 1988 under Section 9(1) of the Act asking the petitioners to appear at the inquiry to be held on 30th May, 1988 for the purpose of determination of compensation. At this stage the present writ petition was filed seeking quashing of all the aforesaid notifications and notices.
3. Show cause notice in this petition was issued on 26th May, 1988 and in CM 1508/88 filed along with the writ petition for interim stay, order was passed that acquisition proceedings shall go on but no final order shall be passed. Division Bench also recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that part of the land had already been taken away and allotted to some other person for commercial purpose. His alternate prayer was that if the land cannot be restored, alternate plot of lad should be allotted. As in spite of giving opportunities counter affidavit was not filed rule was issued on April 3, 1989 and interim order dated 26th May, 1988 was also confirmed.
4. As already pointed out above, petitioners are not pressing the prayers regarding quashing of acquisition proceedings in view of the fact that possession of land in question was taken long ago and has been allotted to some other persons creating third party interest. The prayer made, in these circumstances, was as under:-
(A) Petitioners be paid adequate compensation for the lands in question.
(B) As DDA had taken illegal possession of the land in the year 1975 there was no acquisition and the petitioners were deprived from use of the land from 1975 to 1988, suitable damages be awarded.
(C) In terms of policy of the Government, the petitioners should be allotted alternate land.
5. So far as first prayer is concerned, it cannot be disputed that petitioners are entitled to compensation. In fact, we were informed that the Land Acquisition Collector had even drawn the award. However, as it was in violation of the stay order passed by this Court, the Land Acquisition Collector Realizing his mistake withdrew the said award. In these circumstances, we direct the Land Acquisition Collector to pass award within one month fixing compensation for the land in question. Before passing is award he shall given notice to the petitioners and consider the submissions which would be made by the petitioners in this behalf. In case the petitioners are not satisfied with the compensation ultimately awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, petitioners would be entitled to seek reference to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act.
6. In respect to prayer for allotment of alternate plot, the only direction which can be given is that petitioners may make appropriate representation in this behalf to the competent authority and the competent authority shall consider the said representation in accordance with its policy as well as in accordance with law. Such a representation be made within a period of two weeks and on making this representation appropriate authority shall take necessary decision within two months thereafter.
7. Coming to contentious issue of damages for unauthorised occupation, it may be mentioned that learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment in the case of Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking v. Bhimandas Ambwani and Ors. reported in 2002 VI AD (Delhi) 934 wherein the petitioners were compensated by awarding the cost of Rs. 50, 000/-. The admitted fact in this case is that the possession of land in question was taken by the DDA even when the land in question was not acquired. Petitioners were, thus, deprived of their land by Government/statutory body illegally and without due process of law. This act on the part of the DDA cannot be justified on any ground. At the same time the conduct of the petitioners is also not without blemish. They did not approach the Court challenging their illegal dispossession and were satisfied by only making representations to the authorities even when such representations did not evoke any response. Petitioners rushed to this Court by filing the instant petition only when the acquisition proceedings in respect of land in question were initiated and were at advance stage, i.e. after notice under Section 9 was also issued. We may state here that in the affidavit dated September, 2003 petitioners have claimed substantial damages. In these circumstances the damages which may normally be payable for illegal dispossession cannot be awarded to the petitioners. One cannot loose sight of the fact that any suit by the petitioners for this purpose would be time barred. At the same time we are of the opinion that because of the wrong doing on the part of the DDA, DDA should be burdened with some cost. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with cost of this petition which is quantified at Rs. 35, 000/ .