Nafis Ahmad Siddiqui vs Union Of India And Others

$~88
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                            Judgment delivered on: 24.01.2017

+       W.P. (C) 5252/2015 & CM No.9503/2015


NAFIS AHMAD SIDDIQUI                                                 ...Petitioner


                                         versus


UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                                            ...Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:-
For the Petitioner           : Mr Nafis Ahmad Siddiqui (in person)
For the Respondent/L&B/LAC : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent/DDA       : Mr Dhanesh Relan


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner is seeking 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. The petitioner, consequently, seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 WP(C) 5252/2015 Page 1 of 3 Act') and in respect of which Award No.19/1992-93 dated 18.06.1992 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No. 275/178 admeasuring 200 square yards in Village Joga Bai shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioner. The award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following decisions stand satisfied:-

(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; and

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court.

3. 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.

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

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J JANUARY 24, 2017 dutt WP(C) 5252/2015 Page 3 of 3