Manmohan JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed restraining the respondent-DDA from encroaching and/or dispossessing any member of the petitioner-association from his land as well as for a direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to decide the representation dated 22nd September, 2012 of the petitioner-association. The petitioner also seeks a direction to respondents No. 1 and 2 to proceed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'Act, 2013') in case any land forming part of the colony of the members of the petitioner-association is required for any public purpose.
2. While it is the petitioner's case that in 1992, a colony named Utsav Vihar was developed by a colonizer on private agricultural land, the admitted position is that the land in question was acquired pursuant to a Notification dated 21st March, 2003 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act, 1894') as well as Declaration dated 19th March, 2004 under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 and the Award issued in 2005. On 21st February, 2007, possession was taken over by respondent-DDA after effecting some demolition.
3. It is also an admitted position that part of the alleged petitioner's colony falls within the alignment of the roads proposed by respondent-DDA.
4. The petitioner-association, in accordance with the policy of respondent No. 3 for regularization of un-authorised colonies, prepared the layout plan of the entire colony and submitted an application dated 19th January, 2005 for regularisation of the colony. The said application for regularisation was registered by respondent No. 2 vide No. 00902 dated 19th January, 2005 and petitioner's colony was listed at serial No. 1314.
5. Mr. A.K. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though Section 4 Notification and Section 6 Declaration under the Act, 1894 had been issued and an Award had been passed, yet as no compensation had been paid till date, the land of the petitioner's colony is no more acquired Government land. In support of his submission, he relied upon Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. He repeatedly emphasised that since the acquisition proceedings had lapsed, the land of the petitioner's colony no longer remained acquired government land. Consequently, according to him, the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to utilize any part of the petitioner's colony for any purpose and if the respondents required any land for construction of the road, they can proceed only under the Act, 2013.
6. Mr. Dey contended that despite the fact that the regularisation of the colony of the members of the petitioner-association was under process, the officials of respondents No. 1 and 2 visited the colony of the petitioner-association on 21st February, 2007 and carried out large scale demolition of various houses and boundary walls forming a part of the colony of the petitioner-association.
7. Mr. Ajay Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-DDA stated that the present writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner had no locus standi to file the present writ petition. He stated that admittedly petitioner owned no land and the writ petition failed to describe the land of the colony much less provide the Khasra numbers including those falling in the 100 metre road and 40 metre road. He pointed out that there was no list of members of the petit........