41
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2014
W.P.(C) 7522/2014 & CM 17795/2014
NASSEBUDDIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr B.S. Maan and Mr Vishal Maan.
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B.
Mr Pawan Mathur and Mr Himanshu Gupta for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Khasra No.51 Min (0-7) ought not to be treated as a subject matter of this writ petition inasmuch as the said Khasra does not form part of the Award involved in this case.
WP(C) 7522/2014 Page 1 of 4
2. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has handed over the counter affidavit. The same is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit.
3. The petitioners seek 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.14/87-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos.55/1/1 (0-08), 55/1/2 (0-9), 56/1 (4-04), 56/2 (0-11), 56/3 (1-01), 61/1/1 (1-05), 61/1/2 (2-10), 61/2 (0-14) and 61/3 (0-7) measuring 11 bighas 9 biswas in all in Village- Satbari, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
4. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 14.07.1987 the petitioners dispute this and maintain that physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not been paid.
WP(C) 7522/2014 Page 2 of 4
5. 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:-
(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: WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
6. As a result, the petitioners are 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. WP(C) 7522/2014 Page 3 of 4
7. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 08, 2014 mk WP(C) 7522/2014 Page 4 of 4