Ram Garhia Sabha vs Union Of India & Ors

$~9(III)
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2014

+       W.P.(C) 3748/2014 & CM 7574/2014

RAM GARHIA SABHA                                             .... Petitioner
                                       versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                         ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner         : Mr N. S. Vasisht with Mr S. K. Rout, Ms Jyoti
                             Kataria, Mr Pramod Kumar and Mr Saranjeet Singh
For the Respondent Nos.1&3 : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent No.4    : Mr Zamir Ahmad

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act') which came into effect on 01.01.2014. A declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which Award No. 1775/1963-64 dated 16.12.1964 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No. 122 measuring 5 W.P.(C) No. 3748/2014 Page 1 of 3 bighas and 11 biswas in all in village Salimpur Mazra-Madipur shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the subject land was taken on 06.04.1965, the petitioner disputes this and maintains that physical possession has not been taken. Photographs have also been placed to show that in part of the land a gurudwara is functioning. With regard to compensation, the petitioner has stated that no compensation has been paid. But the learned counsel for the respondents submit that they there are not in a position to controvert or accept this statement inasmuch as the records are not available. In such a situation, this Court is left with no alternative but to accept the positive averment made by the petitioner on affidavit that compensation has not been received by them.

3. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, this much is clear that the Award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been paid. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases stand satisfied:-

W.P.(C) No. 3748/2014 Page 2 of 3

(1) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

(2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and (5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:

4. As a result, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the said acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

5. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



DECEMBER 08, 2014                          SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SR




W.P.(C) No. 3748/2014                                              Page 3 of 3