Jawahar Lal Chhabra & Ors vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6564 Del

$~4(III)
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2014

+       W.P.(C) 1702/2014 & CM 3558/2014
JAWAHAR LAL CHHABRA & ORS                                     .... Petitioners
                                       versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                              ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners        : Mr Gaurav Sarin with Ms Charul Sarin, Mr Ajitesh
                             Kir, Mr Vishnu Langawat and Mr Veera Angrish
For the Respondent Nos.1&2 : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent No.3    : Mr Ajay Verma for DDA.

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

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. 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. 17/1984-85 dated 16.07.1984 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 640/337 (9-09), 643/339

(4-06), 647/345 (4-07), 648/346 (9-09), 343 (2-03), 540/339 (0-16),

541/342 min (2-1), 646/345 (0-19), 542/342 (1-11) and 650/346 (14-18)

measuring 49 bighas and 19 biswas in all in village Lado Sarai shall be

deemed to have lapsed.

2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land

was taken on 31.12.2013 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.

3. 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.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contend that this

petition is not maintainable by the present petitioners in view of the fact

that they are subsequent purchasers. This issue stands settled against the

respondents by virtue of our decision in the case of Anil Kumar

Aggarwal v. Union of India and Others: WP(C) 5420/2014 decided on

03.11.2014 as also in the case of Ranjana Bhatia v. Government of NCT

of Delhi and Another: WP(C) 2210/2010 decided on 28.10.2014.

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. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the writ petition is allowed

to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                        BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



DECEMBER 08, 2014                         SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SR