Ramesh Malik & Anr vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi &Ors;

$~24
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 10.11.2014

+       W.P.(C) 4236/2014 & CM No.8507/2014

RAMESH MALIK & ANR                                     .... Petitioners

                                       versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI &ORS                             ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Lalit Kumar Rawal, Advocate with Mr Ram Kumar Ranga
                      and Mr Vishal Thakur, Advocates
For the Respondents :Mr Yeeshu Jain, Advocate with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
                     R-1 & R-2
                     Ms Mrinalini S. Gupta, Advocate with Ms Ruhi Chopra,
                    Advocate for R-2

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

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. Mr Yeeshu Jain states that the counter affidavit has been filed vide diary No.194634 dated 13.10.2014. The same be taken on record. He has, however, handed over a copy of the counter affidavit which has been filed. The copy is also taken on record.

2. The petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation W.P.(C) No. 4236/2014 Page 1 of 3 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.1/98-99 dated 24.04.1998 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos.42//4 Min (0-13), 7 Min (1-07) and 14 (1-00) measuring 3 bighas in all in village Shahbad Daulatpur, New Delhi shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 17.11.2007, 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.

4. 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. 4236/2014 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:

5. 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.

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

                                          BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J




NOVEMBER 10, 2014                          SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
dn




W.P.(C) No. 4236/2014                                                Page 3 of 3