* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 03.08.2015
+ WP(C) No. 8407/2014
RAJAN ANAND .... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr B.S. Maan, Mr Vishal Maan, Mr B. Tripathy and
Mr Naresh Kaushik
For the Respondent Nos. 1&2 : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA/R-3 : Mr Pawan Mathur
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which Award No.14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect W.P.(C) No.8407/2014 Page 1 of 6 of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No. 975 measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas in all in village Satbari, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said land was taken on 14.07.1987. This is disputed by the petitioner, who claims to be in actual physical possession of the subject land. At this juncture we may also point out that one Mr O.P. Sachdeva has filed CM No. 5974/2015 seeking impleadment in this writ petition on the ground that he is the owner in possession. This fact is vehemently disputed by the petitioner who claims to be the owner in possession. As pointed out above, physical possession is said to have been taken by the land acquiring agency on 14.07.1987. Therefore, the situation which prevails is that the issue with regard to physical possession between the petitioner and the said Mr O.P. Sachdeva on the one hand and the land acquiring agency on the other is disputed. As regards ownership and title, that fact is also in dispute between the petitioner and the said Mr Sachdeva and this court is not entering into that controversy. The petitioner as well as the said Mr Sachdeva would have to independently fight out their claim to title in an appropriate proceeding before an appropriate forum. We are W.P.(C) No.8407/2014 Page 2 of 6 here only concerned with the question of the acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act having lapsed or not.
3. In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, the same has not been paid to the petitioner but, according to the respondents, the same has been deposited in the treasury. Therefore, they seek to invoke the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which was introduced by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Ordinance").
4. So far as the applicability of the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon by the respondents inasmuch as the Ordinance of 2014 has been held to be prospective in nature and does not take away vested rights. This has so been held by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in M/s Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 4283/2011 wherein the Supreme Court held as under:-
"The right conferred to the land holders/owners of the acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is the W.P.(C) No.8407/2014 Page 3 of 6 statutory right and, therefore, the said right cannot be taken away by an Ordinance by inserting proviso to the abovesaid sub-section without giving retrospective effect to the same."
5. The same has been reinforced by the Supreme Court in Karnail Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7424/2013 decided on 22.01.2015.
6. From the above decisions, it is evident that the said Ordinance of 2014 is prospective in nature and the rights created in favour of the petitioners as on 01.01.2014 by virtue of the 2013 Act are undisturbed by the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which has been introduced by the said Ordinance. The same would apply in respect of the said Ordinance of 2015.
7. Without going into the controversy with regard to the 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 to the petitioner, but has only been deposited in the treasury, which does not amount to payment of compensation as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183. W.P.(C) No.8407/2014 Page 4 of 6
8. All 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) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;
(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;
(3) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and (4) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
9. As a result, it is declared that the said acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the said land have been lapsed on account of the deeming provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
10. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. We are once again making it clear that we are not deciding any dispute with regard to the title and that remains to be settled between the petitioner on the one W.P.(C) No.8407/2014 Page 5 of 6 hand and the said Mr Sachdeva on the other hand before an appropriate court. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J AUGUST 03, 2015 SU W.P.(C) No.8407/2014 Page 6 of 6