Amarjeet Singh And Ors vs Land Acquisition Collector ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 6548 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2014

+       W.P.(C) 3845/2014

AMARJEET SINGH AND ORS                                 .... Petitioners
                                       versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR
(SOUTH) AND ANR                                        ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Deepak Khosla
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for the Respondent/L&B
                      and LAC

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

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit of respondent No. 1 handed over by the

learned counsel Mr Yeeshu Jain is taken on record. The learned counsel

for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and

submits that he shall rely on the averments made in the writ petition.

2. 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. 18/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of

the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 2206/1046/2/1 (8-00),

2206/1046/2/2 (20-13), 2208/1046 (3-14), 2207/1046/2 (11-10),

2207/1046/2/2 (28-02) and 2207/1046/2/3 (24-16) measuring 96 bighas

and 15 biswas in all in village Tughlaqabad shall be deemed to have

lapsed.

3. The respondents claim that possession in respect of 38 bighas out

of the said lands was taken on three separate dates, namely, 06.06.2013,

31.07.2013 and 31.12.2013. In respect of the balance land, it is an

admitted position that possession was not taken. However, the petitioners

maintain that physical possession of the entire land is with them and it

has not been taken over by the land acquiring agency. Insofar as the issue

of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not

been paid.

4. Insofar as the substantial portion of the land is concerned, as

mentioned above, physical possession of the same has not admittedly

been taken by the land acquiring agency. With regard to the balance

land, there is a controversy as to who is in physical possession. But we

need not go into this controversy inasmuch as the award was made more

than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and,

admittedly, compensation has 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:-

(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.

5. 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.

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 08, 2014 SU