Lalita Gogia vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors

$~      57

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                   Judgment delivered on: 22.12.2014

W.P.(C) 6589/2014 & CM 15677/2014

LALITA GOGIA                                                         ...        Petitioner

                                          versus


GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                    ...         Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:-
For the Petitioner                    : Mr Sundeep Srivastava
For the Respondent No 1-3             : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.
For the Respondent No.4               : Mr Parvinder Chauhan

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter-affidavit handed over on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 by Mr Yeeshu Jain is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder-affidavit in view of the fact that he shall place reliance on the averments made in the writ petition.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land WP(C) 6589/2014 Page 1 of 3 Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act') which came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioner, consequently, seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') and in respect of which Award No. 24/05-06 dated 03.02.2006 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 6 min (0-6) and 8 min (1-14), measuring 2 bighs in village Bhalswa Jahangirpur, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the subject lands has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioner. The award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following decisions stand satisfied:-

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

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

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

(iv) Surender Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court.

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 lands 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 I.S. MEHTA, J DECEMBER 22, 2014 dutt WP(C) 6589/2014 Page 3 of 3