$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11.08.2016
+ WP(C) Nos.12604/2004, 12606-12607/2004, 12605/2004
RAMANDEEP & ORS .... Petitioners
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 3 : Mr Sundeep Srivastava with Mr U.S. Dhindsa
For the Respondent 2 to 4 : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Ms Kaomudi
Kiran Pathak, Mr Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr
Kushal Raj Tater.
For the Respondent DUSIB : Mr Parvinder Chauhan
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not pressing this writ petition insofar as the petitioner no.1 is concerned. Insofar as the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are concerned they are seeking the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, W.P.(C) No. 12604/2004 & Ors Page 1 of 4 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act') which came into effect on 01.01.2014.
2. The petitioner numbers 2 & 3 are recorded owners of 3 bighas 1 biswa of land comprised in khasra no. 143 min. The said khasra number 143 min has a total extent of 6 bighas 5 biswas . The balance 3 bighas 4 biswas is not the subject matter of the present writ petition. The petitioner no.4 is the recorded owner of khasra no. 672 to the extent of 1 bigha out of the total area of 4 bighas 16 biswas comprised in this khasra. Both the khasras are in respect of lands situated in village Bhalswa Jahangirpur, Delhi.
3. The relevant acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') culminated in award no. 24/2005-06/DC(NW) dated 03.02.2006.
4. Insofar as khasra no. 143 min, to the extent of 3 bighas 1 biswa, is concerned which belongs to petitioner nos. 2 &3, the case of the respondents is that they have taken possession of the said land but have not paid compensation in respect thereof. The aspect of the possession is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, it is clear that while the issue of possession is disputed, compensation has W.P.(C) No. 12604/2004 & Ors Page 2 of 4 admittedly not been paid by the respondents nor received by the petitioner nos. 2 to 3 in respect of 3 bighas 1 biswa of land comprised in khasra no. 143 min. The award has also been made more than five years prior to the commencement of 2013 Act i.e. (1.1.2014). Therefore, all the ingredients of section 24(2) stand satisfied and the said acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed in respect of the said land.
5. The claim of the petitioner no.4 is in respect of 1 bigha of land comprised in khasra no. 672 as mentioned above. The admitted case is that neither possession of the said land has been taken nor has any compensation been paid in respect thereof. Therefore, this is also a clear case which falls within the provisions of section 24(2) and the acquisition is liable to be declared as having lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.
6. We may point out that Mr Pathak appearing on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector had also submitted that steps towards completing the acquisition in respect of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 could not be taken because of a stay order passed by this court in this case. However, this plea is not available to Mr Pathak in view of the decision of this court in the case of Jagjit Singh v. Union of India- 2014 (211) DLT 15 and the W.P.(C) No. 12604/2004 & Ors Page 3 of 4 Supreme Court decision in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors v. Jagjit Singh : 2015 (8) SCC 554.
7. Consequently the writ petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J AUGUST 11, 2016 kb W.P.(C) No. 12604/2004 & Ors Page 4 of 4