Rajinder Prasad & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6556 Del

30
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2014

W.P.(C) 7357/2014 & CM 17205/2014

RAJINDER PRASAD & ORS.                                                  ..... Petitioners

                             versus


UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                                ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr N.S.Vasisht.

For the Respondents   : Mr Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr T.P.Singh for UOI.
                        Mr Yeeshu Jain, Ms Jyoti Tyagi and Mr Siddharth Panda for
                        LAC/L&B.
                        Mr Manu Mridul and Ms Ragini for DDA.

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

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain on behalf of the

respondent Nos.4 and 5 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit.

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.33/86-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos.959/1 (1-12), 960 (1-18) and

961/1 (3-07) measuring 6 bighas 17 biswas in all in Village- Mahipalpur

shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. Though the respondents claim that possession of the said land was

taken on 27.03.2001, the petitioners dispute this and maintain 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.

4. 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:-

(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 mk