Shashi Jai Krishna vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors

$~48(III)
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 11.11.2014

+       W.P.(C) 4354/2014
SHASHI JAI KRISHNA                                           .... Petitioner
                                       versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                             ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Satyavan Kudalwal
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti
                      Tyagi and Mr Siddharth Panda /L&B and LAC.
                      Mr Pawan Mathur for DDA.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. Mr Yeeshu Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector, states that the counter-affidavit has been filed vide diary No. 211917 on 07.11.2014. The same is not on record. He has, however, given a copy of the said affidavit. The Registry is directed to place that counter-affidavit on record. The copy is also taken on record.

2. The petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation W.P.(C) No. 4354/2014 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. 75/1983-84 dated 09.12.1983 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 74/24/2(0-16), 76/10(0-

10), 77/3/2(0-1), 77/4(4-16), 77/6 (4-19), 77/7(4-0), 77/13/2(1-12) measuring 20 bighas 6 biswsas in all in village Mehrauli shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 21.12.1983, the petitioner disputes this and maintains 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 W.P.(C) No. 4354/2014 Page 2 of 3 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:

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


NOVEMBER 11, 2014                         SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SR


W.P.(C) No. 4354/2014                                              Page 3 of 3