Case Title: Citicap Housing Developments Ltd V. Union of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has noted that when the fact of ownership in a party's favour cannot be proven from the records available, just recording the Sale Deed would not relieve that party of the responsibility of proving its entitlement to compensation in relation to the land.
A petition asking for a directive against the authorities to give over or return the unoccupied and quiet ownership of a piece of land was being heard by a division bench made up of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kanth. In addition, the petitioner asked for a directive under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Resettlement Act of 2013 to prevent the authorities from acquiring the contested land.
According to the petitioner, Citicap Housing Development Limited, the relevant land was the property of its individual owners and had not been purchased by the government. It was claimed that the sale deed dated November 8, 1993, had been signed in the petitioner's favour by the High Court Registrar. The Petitioner asserted that it was the only and exclusive owner of the subject property under the terms of the aforementioned registered sale deed. In the revenue records, the parcel of property in question was also changed to the Petitioner's name. In light of the fact that the DDA had been using the land in issue without permission, the petitioner claimed that the DDA should turn up the property. The petitioner filed a writ case with the High Court after the DDA refused to act on the aforementioned request. The Court instructed the parties to maintain the status quo with regard to the contested land in an order dated December 1, 1997.
Then it was claimed that while the aforementioned petition was still pending, the petitioner requested that the SDM demarcate the parcel of property in dispute (Kalkaji). The land in issue was demarcated, and the demarcation report determined that it was a developed colony, but the precise location of the land in question was not able to be determined during the demarcation process.
The petitioner contended that they had served the Delhi Jal Board with a formal notice demanding that they leave the property in question. However, the aforementioned legal notification received no favourable reaction. The Petitioner had made several requests to the Respondents in order to acquire the property in issue and get the market value of the property as compensation, or alternatively, to be given another plot with the same market value as the property in question. However, there was no reply. As a result, the petitioner went to the High Court.
The Court believed that the issue entailed contested factual issues that could not be resolved in a writ petition. It was mentioned that the Petitioner asserted ownership of the property in dispute. It was also recognised, nonetheless, that the Respondents already had possession of the property in issue prior to the issuance of the sale deed for the property in question in the petitioner's favour.
"There appears to be nothing on record to show that the vacant possession of the land in question was ever handed over to the Petitioner. The identity of the land in question is still under dispute and the issue as to whose possession the land in question is yet to be established. How, when and under what circumstances, the Respondents came into possession of the land in question is also to be ascertained. All these facts, according to this Court, have to be established by leading evidence in accordance with the law," the Court said.
It added "The Petitioner has to establish its right under the law to claim the substantial relief as claimed in the present Writ Petition. Merely by placing on record the Sale Deed will not absolve the Petitioner from its burden to establish its right to claim compensation in respect of the land in question when the factum of possession in favour of the Petitioner is not established from the documents available on record."
The Court thus decided that the Writ Petition was not the right course of action for the Petitioner. The Court noted that although the Petitioner had acquired the property from the previous original or documented owners as a later buyer, there was no evidence on file showing the Petitioner had been given ownership of the property in issue. As a result, the Court rejected the petition by making the following order:
"The Petitioner is however at liberty to pursue other remedies as available under the law for establishing its rights to claim substantial reliefs as claimed under this Petition. It is clarified that this Court has examined the matter on the limited issue of its maintainability and no opinion has been expressed on the merits of the Petition."