Rekha Chandhok vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6567 Del

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2014

+       W.P.(C) 7628/2014

REKHA CHANDHOK                                                   ..... Petitioner

                             versus


UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                        ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner    : Mr Manish Kumar with Mr Piyush Kaushik

For the Respondents : Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay with Ms Indu Prabha for UOI
                      Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B
                      Mr Dhanesh Relan with Mr Arush Bhandari 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 Nos. 3 and 4 has handed over the

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

petitioner states that he does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as all the

material averments are contained 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 land comprised in Khasra Nos.

1520 (4-11), 1579 (4-06) and 1582 (4-09) measuring 13 bighas and 6 biswas

in Village Chattarpur, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed. It may be

pointed out that Khasra Nos. 1520, 1579 and 1582 comprised of 4 bighas and

16 biswas, 4 bighas 14 biswas and 4 bighas and 16 biswas resepectively. It

is the case of the respondents which is not disputed by the petitioner that

possession of 5 biswas, 8 biswas and 7 biswas out of the said khasra numbers

respectively was taken on 01.08.2013. This petition is restricted only to the

remaining portion of the said khasra numbers of which admittedly no

physical possession was taken. We may also point out that although the

respondents in their counter affidavits have taken the objection that there are

no documents to show as to how the petitioner is connected with the subject

lands. This, however, is belied by the fact that the petitioner has furnished

copies of the sale deeds at pages 26 to 46 of the writ petition. A copy of the

khasra girdawari is also given at pages 76 to 87 where the name of the

petitioner has been clearly indicated. This objection raised on behalf of the

respondents is not supported by the material on record and is, therefore,

rejected.

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 SU