$~ 58(II)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 16.09.2014
+ W.P.(C) 1898/2014 & CM 3957/2014
RAVI DUTT & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Dhruv Madan with Mr Ashish Mohan
For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Mr Sunil Kumar Jha and
Mrs Kiran Pathak for the Respondent/L&B and LAC
Mr Ajay Verma for DDA.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that this matter is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Girish Chhabra vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014. He states that although possession of the subject land has been taken, the award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation W.P.(C) No. 1898/2014 Page 1 of 4 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. In this case Award No. 15/1987-88 was made on 06.06.1987. He also states that compensation has not yet been paid to the petitioners. Therefore, the requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have been fulfilled and the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is situated in Village Chattarpur in Khasra Nos. 343, 344, 345, 346, 417, 420, 421, 422/2, 423, 424/1, 424/2, 426/1 and 440 measuring 43 bighas 12 biswas in all.
2. Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has been taken on 05.07.2013, 10.07.2013 and 17.07.2013 and possession is with the DDA, compensation has not been paid to the petitioners. The Award is also more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Consequently, the decision of this Court in Girish Chhabra (supra) applies on all fours and the subject acquisition has lapsed.
3. A prayer has also been made seeking return of possession of the subject land which is vacant as a consequence of the acquisition having lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the said Act. It is W.P.(C) No. 1898/2014 Page 2 of 4 the contention of the learned counsel for the DDA there cannot be any direction with regard to the return of the land to the petitioners inasmuch as the earlier acquisition had been confirmed by the Supreme Court. He further states that the subject land has also been handed over to the CISF on 31.08.2012.
4. We are not in agreement with the submission made by Mr Verma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DDA, inasmuch as the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183 had not interfered with the order of the High Court which quashed the acquisition proceedings and directed restoration of possession. The logical sequitur of the acquisition having lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the said Act is that the acquiring authority would have no legal basis for retaining the said land. It is always open to the appropriate government under Section 24(2), if it so chooses, to initiate proceedings for acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act. But, till that happens, the land, which is the subject matter of acquisition which has lapsed, cannot be retained by the acquiring authority or its transferee.
W.P.(C) No. 1898/2014 Page 3 of 4
5. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SR
W.P.(C) No. 1898/2014 Page 4 of 4