Matrix Investment Private ... vs Govt. Of National Capital ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 6570 Del

35
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2014

W.P.(C) 7470/2014 & CM 17697/2014

MATRIX INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED                                        ..... Petitioner

                             versus


GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.
                                        ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms Jugnu Bagga and Mr Rajiv
                      Kr. Ghawana.

For the Respondents   : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B.
                        Mr Pawan Mathur and Mr Himanshu Gupta for DDA.

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

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks 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 claims that neither possession

of the subject land has been taken nor has any compensation been paid and,

therefore, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings

initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

1894 Act') in respect of which Award No.14/87-88 dated 26.05.1987 was

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

No.654 Min measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas in Village- Satbari, shall be

deemed to have lapsed.

2. 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 has, as noted above,

also been made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013

Act. However, the learned counsel for the respondents contend that this

petition is not maintainable by the present petitioner in view of the fact that

he is a subsequent purchaser. The learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that it is settled law that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge

the acquisition proceedings and he is only entitled to seek compensation.

They placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of KN

Aswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr. LRs.& Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.:

AIR 2014 SC 279. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that

the sale deeds whereby the original owners are alleged to have transferred

their rights in favour of the current petitioner would not confer any title upon

the petitioner and at the most the petitioner would be entitled only to claim

compensation on the basis of the original owner's title. A reference in this

connection was also made to the Supreme Court decision in the case of

Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Ors.: (2008) 9 SCC 177.

3. There is no doubt that in the context of the 1894 Act the Supreme

Court clearly held that a subsequent purchaser would not have a right to

challenge the acquisition and would only have a right to seek compensation.

But, the position obtaining at present is different. This is a petition which

does not seek to challenge the acquisition proceedings but seeks a

declaration of a right which has enured to the benefit of the petitioner by

virtue of the operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Once the acquisition

is deemed to have lapsed because of the operation of the deeming provision

of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the benefit of the same cannot be denied to

the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser.

This is, of course, provided that the conditions precedent for the application

of the deeming provision contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are

satisfied.

4. In the present case, it is evident, as pointed out above, that neither the

physical possession of the subject land has been taken by the land acquiring

agency nor has any compensation been paid to the original owner or to the

petitioner. The award was also made more than five years prior to the

commencement of the 2013 Act and, therefore, all the necessary ingredients

of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and

this court in the following decisions 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. 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 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