$~62
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 28.11.2016
W.P.(C) 7568/2015
BHAGAT SINGH ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr N. S. Chechi
For the Respondent LAC/L&B : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent DDA : Ms Shobhana Takiar
For the Respondent UOI : Mr Rajesh Kumar with Mr Santwana
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
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) 7568/2015 Page 1 of 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which Award No.205/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 228/1 (2-16), 229 (4-4), 230/1(2-
12), 250 (4-16), 252/2 (2-16), 269/1 (2-0), 270 (4-16) measuring 24 bighas in all (to the extent of a 1/12th share) in village Kotla Mahigram shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 04.12.1986, 12.12.1996 and 05.03.1997, 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:-
WP(C) 7568/2015 Page 2 of 3
(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. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J JAYANT NATH, J NOVEMBER 28, 2016 SR WP(C) 7568/2015 Page 3 of 3