Santosh Sharma vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors

$~      10

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 23.12.2014

+       W.P.(C) 6222/2014 & CM 15039/2014

SANTOSH SHARMA                                                    .... Petitioner
                              versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                  ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner                     : Mr Rajiv Kumar Ghawana
For the Respondent Nos. 1&2            : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak
For the Respondent No.3                : Mr Ajay Verma.



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&2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as he would be relying on the averments made in the writ petition.

W.P.(C) No. 6222/2014 Page 1 of 4

2. 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 Nos. 89/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 and 234/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in khasra Nos. 409 (6-16) and 410/1 (0-15) measuring 7 bighas and 11 biswas in all in village Malik Pur Chhawani, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. According to the learned counsel for the respondents possession of 14 biswas from khasra no. 410/1 was taken on 23.09.1986. The petitioner maintains that physical possession is still with them even in respect of these 14 biswas of land. Insofar as the balance land is concerned, it is an admitted position that the respondents have not taken physical possession of the same. However, insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned it is an admitted position that it has not been paid. W.P.(C) No. 6222/2014 Page 2 of 4

4. Without going into the controversy of physical possession with regard to the 14 biswas referred to above, 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 and physical possession of the balance land has also not been taken. 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:

W.P.(C) No. 6222/2014 Page 3 of 4

5. 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.

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

                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J




DECEMBER 23,2014                         I.S. MEHTA
kb




W.P.(C) No. 6222/2014                                              Page 4 of 4