Arun Mehra vs Union Of India And Ors

$~87

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 16.09.2014

W.P.(C) 3836/2014 & CM No.7737/2014, 7738/2014

ARUN MEHRA                                                 ..... Petitioner

                             versus



UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                     ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Nitin Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Mr Siddharth Panda, Mr Yeeshu
                      Jain, Ms Jyoti Tyagi and Mr Anshuman Nayak, Advocates for
                      L&B/LAC
                       Mr Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Mr Ajay Verma, Advocate
                      for DDA

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

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. 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 WP(C) 3836/2014 Page 1 of 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which Award No. 10/87-88 dated 14.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos.121, 122 and 123/1 measuring 5 bighas 16 biswas in all in village Shayoorpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 14.07.1987, 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.

3. 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.

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 land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

5. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Pending applications also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 dn WP(C) 3836/2014 Page 3 of 3