Narender Sharma vs Union Of India & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6560 Del

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2014

+       W.P.(C) 5063/2014 and CM No. 10089/2014

NARENDER SHARMA                                                  ..... Petitioner

                              versus


UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                           ..... Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner      : Mr Sumit Bansal, Mr Ateev Mathur and Ms Richa Oberoi
For the Respondents : Mr Manish Mohan and Ms Puja Sarkar for UOI
                      Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B
                      Mr Pawan Mathur for DDA


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

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has handed over the counter

affidavit. The same is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and submits that he

would rely on the averments made in the writ petition.

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. The petitioner,

consequently, 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 half share in the land

comprised in Khasra No. 1915 measuring 4 bighas and 3 biswas in Village

Chattarpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. 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;

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

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

4. 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 is deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

5. 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