Jagwant Singh And Ors vs Land Acquisition ...

$~24
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 03.05.2016

+       WP(C) No.4866/2015 & CM 8798/2015

JAGWANT SINGH AND ORS                                               .... Petitioners
                                       versus

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR(SOUTH) AND ANR.... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners                    :        Mr Sukhbir Sejwal
For the Respondent LAC                  :       Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioners seek 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.23/1987-88 dated 17.6.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra No.515 min (3-0) measuring 3 W.P.(C) No 4866/2015 Page 1 of 3 bighas in all in village Maidan Garhi, 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 16.07.1987. This is disputed by the petitioners, who claim to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.

3. With regard to the question of compensation, it is an admitted position that the same has not been paid to the petitioners although according to the respondents the same has been deposited in the treasury.

4. 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.

5. 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:-

W.P.(C) No 4866/2015 Page 2 of 3

(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:

6. As a result, the petitioners are 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.

7. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MAY 03, 2016 kb W.P.(C) No 4866/2015 Page 3 of 3