Delhi High Court
Amarjeet Rewari & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 8 December, 2014
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2014
W.P.(C) 6366/2014 & CM 15347/2014
AMARJEET REWARI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Amit Agrawal.
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B.
Mr Pawan Mathur for DDA.
Mr Bhagwan Swaroop Sukla, CGSC with Mr Vijay Kinger for UOI.
.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. Mr Yeeshu Jain has handed over the counter affidavit on behalf of the
respondent Nos.1 and 2. The said counter affidavit is taken on record.
2. In paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit an objection is taken that
the petitioners have not placed on record any document showing their
entitlement to file the present writ petition. Nor has there been any averment
qua their right in respect of the right, title and interest concerning the lands in
question. Paragraph 1 of the writ petition belies this statement inasmuch as it
has been clearly stated therein that the petitioners are the legal heirs of late
Shri Shyam Sunder Singh Rewari and late Shri Nand Kumar Rewari who
had undivided interest in the subject land. The petitioners are the widows and
sons, respectively, of late Shri Shyam Sunder Singh Rewari and late Shri
Nand Kumar Rewari whose names clearly appear in the Khasra Girdawaris,
copies of which have been placed as annexure P-2 (collectively). Therefore,
the objection as to the locus of the petitioners, which has been raised on
behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, is not supported by the pleadings and
or the material on record. The petitioners are entitled to bring this petition in
respect of the subject land.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that this matter is
covered by the decision of this court in the case of Girish Chhabra v. Lt.
Governor of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014.
He states that although possession of the subject land has been taken, the
Award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
1894 Act') was made more than five years prior to the commencement 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. In this case Award
No.15/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 and Award No.24/87-88 dated 09.07.1987
were made. He also states that compensation has not yet been paid to the
petitioners. Therefore, the requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
have been fulfilled and the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the
subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is
situated in Village- Chhatarpur in Khasra Nos.915/1(0-13) and 923/1/2(0-12)
measuring 1 bigha 5 biswas in all.
4. Admittedly, physical possession of the subject land was taken on
17.07.2013. The learned counsel for the respondents states that though
compensation has not been paid in respect of Khasra No.915/1,
compensation was paid in respect of the other Khasra No.923/1/2. He states
that the said payment was made by virtue of a deposit made in court pursuant
to an order passed by a Vacation Judge of this court in CM(Main)
No.1403/2013 on 30.12.2013. By virtue of that order the said CM(Main),
amongst others, was disposed of by recording that without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the land holders the cheque tendered in each
petition would be treated as tendered to the court of the learned Additional
District Judge, Delhi as of that date, i.e., 30.12.2013. According to Mr Jain
this amounts to payment of compensation. This issue has been settled by a
decision of this court in Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.
WP(C) No.1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014 wherein this court held that
compensation cannot be regarded as having been paid merely on the deposit
of the same in court unless and until it has first been offered to the person
interested and he has refused to accept the same. In the present case, it is an
admitted position that the compensation amount was tendered in this court in
the said CM(Main) without first being offered to the petitioners herein.
Therefore, such deposit cannot be regarded as compensation having been
paid to the petitioners.
5. Therefore, the fact situation is that though physical possession of the
subject land has been taken on 17.07.2013, compensation has not been paid
to the petitioners. The Award is also more than five years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients necessary for the
applicability 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
(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C)
2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(v) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors: WP(C)
2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
(vi) Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors:
W.P.(C) 1393/2014.
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
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
DECEMBER 08, 2014
mk
