Ravinder Kumar Ahuja vs Union Of India And Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6342 Del

$~31

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 01.12.2014

W.P.(C) 7102/2014 & CM No.16653/2014 (Stay)

RAVINDER KUMAR AHUJA                                               ..... Petitioner

                             versus


UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                             ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr S.K. Rout, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr Siddharth Panda, Advocate for R-1 & R-2
                      Mr Pawan Mathur, Advocate for R-3

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1 has been handed

over to us by Mr Siddharth Panda, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The same is taken on record.

2. 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. Consequently,

the petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894

Act') and in respect of which Award No.15/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 was

made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra

Nos.1570/1 (3-18), 1571/1 (3-18), 1732/1 (2-8), 1733/1/1 (0-13), 1733/1/2

(0-15), 1737/1 (3-12), 1732/2 (2-8) and 1737/2 (1-4) measuring 18 bighas 16

biswas in Village Chattarpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents and in particular the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector states that

Khasra No.1737 has not been acquired at all. He states that though it was

mentioned in the Section 4 notification under the 1894 Act, it was not part of

the Award. Therefore, insofar as Khasra No.1737 is concerned, it is clear

that the said Khasra was never acquired and the question of any deemed

lapsing of an acquisition proceeding does not arise. Hence, we are

considering this writ petition after excluding any reference to Khasra

No.1737.

4. It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the

subject lands 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;

(iv) Surinder Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.:

W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court.

5. 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

lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no

order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 01, 2014 dn