The relevant paras of the impugned Order read as follows In the facts of the present case, we find that obviously numberphysical possession of the land was taken over, but a formality was companypleted only on the file.
The impugned order passed by the Government of NCT Delhi is a cryptic order mentioning only that since the possession of the acquired land had been taken over by the DDA on 22 2 2006, it was number possible for the D.D.A. to de notify the land under Section 48 of the Act.
By the impugned Judgment, the High Court has set aside the Order dated 20 4 2006 whereby the request of the first respondent for de notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been turned down.
KURIAN, J The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 24 12 2010 of the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petitions Civil Nos.
82 of 1979 for quite some time.
The representatives of the respondents in the absence of any Halka Patwari just went around the wall and companypleted a numbering in the file and this cannot be categorized as sufficient to companystitute taking over possession in view of what we have referred to aforesaid.
3823 3825 of 2006.
The suit was ultimately dismissed on 18 8 2005.
The High Court in the impugned order, after examining the records, came to a finding that there is numberbasis for the stand taken by the DDA that the acquired land had already been taken into possession as per the proceedings dated 22 2 2006 and thus observing, the matter has been remitted to the DDA to companysider the representation filed by the first respondent afresh and to pass orders on merits.
