Murti Devi vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6562 Del

26
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2014

W.P.(C) 6993/2014 & CM 16424/2014

MURTI DEVI                                                               ..... Petitioner

                             versus


UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                                ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Sumit Bansal, Mr Ateev Mathur, Ms Richa Oberoi and Ms Jagriti
                      Ahuja.

For the Respondents   : Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC with Ms Indu Prabha for UOI.
                        Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B.




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

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. Mr Jain appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has handed

over the counter affidavit. The same is taken on record. The learned counsel

for the petitioner states that there is no need to file any rejoinder affidavit.

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.8/96-97 dated 11.12.1996 was

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

30//4 (1-14) and 30//7/1 (2-06) measuring 4 bighas in all in Village- Safipur

Ranhaula, Delhi shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. 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.

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

lands are 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 mk