Delhi High Court
M/S Harmony Properties Private ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 December, 2014
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15.12.2014
+ W.P.(C) 7699/2014
M/S HARMONY PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED .... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Bharat Beriwal.
For the Respondent nos.2 & 3 : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms.Jyoti Tyagi.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE I. S. MEHTA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. 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 seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894
Act) and in respect of which the Award No.15/87-88 dated 05.06.1987
was made, inter alia in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in
Khasra No.1317/1 (0-8), 1317/2 (4-8), 1315 (3-10), 1320(1-0), 1304/2
(2-16), 1318min (0-13) and 1304/1 (2-0), measuring 14 bigha and 15
biswas in Village Chhatarpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. It is an admitted position that the physical possession of the subject
land has not been taken by the land acquiring agency. However, insofar
as the compensation is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the
same has not been paid to it, whereas it is the case of the respondents that
compensation was deposited in Court pursuant to an order passed by the
Vacation Judge of this Court in CM(M) No.1411/2013 passed on
30.12.2013 in respect of Khasra Nos.1317/1 (0-8), 1317/2(4-8),
1320(1-0), 1318 min (0-3) and 1304/1 (2-0). By virtue of that order, the
said CM(M), amongst others, was disposed of by recording that without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land holder, the cheque
tendered in each petition shall be treated as tendered to the Court of
learned Additional District Judge, Delhi as of that date, i.e. 30.12.2013.
3. According to the respondents, this amounts to payment of
compensation. However, this issue has already been settled by a decision
of this Court in Gynander Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI and Ors. in WP(C)
No.1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014, wherein this Court held that unless
and until the compensation was tendered to the person interested, mere
deposit of the compensation in Court would not be sufficient. The
compensation would not be regarded as having been paid merely on the
deposit of the same in Court, unless and until it is offered to the person
interested and he has refused to accept the same.
4. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the compensation
amount in respect of the above-mentioned Khasra numbers was tendered
in this Court in CM(M) No.1411/2013 without first being offered the
same to the petitioner herein. Therefore, following the decision in
Gyanender Singh (supra), the same cannot be regarded as compensation
having been paid to the petitioner. Insofar as the other khasra numbers are
concerned, it is an admitted position that compensation has not even been
deposited in Court.
5. In these circumstances, it is clear that neither physical possession
of the said land has been taken by the land acquiring agency nor has any
compensation been paid to the petitioner. The award was made more than
5 years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients
necessary for the applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as
interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following
decisions stands 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
(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others:
WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this
Court; and
(v) Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors:
W.P.(C) 1393/2014.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, raised
another objection and that is that this petition is not maintainable by the
present petitioner in view of the fact that it is a subsequent purchaser. The
learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the Supreme
Court decision in K.N.Aswathanarayana Shetty vs. State of Karnataka:
AIR 2014 SC 279. A reference was also made to the Supreme Court
decision in the case of Meera vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi: 2008 (9) SC
177. It was contended that it is settled law that a subsequent purchaser
cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and he is only entitled to
seek compensation.
7. 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 proceedings and would only have a right to seek
compensation, but the position in the present case is different. The
petitioner is not challenging the acquisition proceedings, but is merely
seeking a declaration of its right which has enured to its benefit by virtue
of the operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This issue has also been
covered by a decision of this Court in Anir Kumar Aggarwal vs. Union
of India and Ors. in WP(C) No.5420/2014 decided on 03.11.2014.
8. Consequently, the benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner on the
ground that it is a subsequent purchaser once it is recognised that the
acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed because of the
operation of the deeming provision of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
9. 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.
10. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
DECEMBER 15, 2014/'dc' I. S. MEHTA, J
