Delhi High Court
Fazruddin vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 15 December, 2014
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15.12.2014
+ W.P.(C) 7776/2014 & CM 18282/2014
FAZRUDDIN ... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr B.S. Maan with Mr Vishal Maan.
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.
Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal for DDA.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE I. S. MEHTA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Jain on behalf of
respondent no.2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner
does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and reiterates the averments
made 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 the Award No.
10/1987-88 dated 14.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the
petitioner's land comprised in khasra numbers 457(4-16) and 458/2(2-08)
measuring 7 bighas 4 biswas in village Sayoorpur, New Delhi, shall be
deemed to have lapsed.
3. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, it is the case of the
petitioner that the same has not been paid to them whereas it is the case of
the respondents that the said compensation was deposited in court
pursuant to an order passed by a Vacation Judge of this court in
C.M.(Main) 1407/2013 passed on 30.12.2013. By virtue of that order,
the said C.M.(Main), amongst others, was disposed of by recording that
without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land holders the
cheque tendered in each petition would be treated as tendered to the court
of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi as of that date i.e.
30.12.2013. According to the respondents this amounts to payment of
compensation. However, this issue has already been settled by a decision
of this court in Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. WPC
1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014 wherein this court held that unless and
until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere
deposit of the compensation in court would not be sufficient. The
compensation cannot be regarded as having been paid merely on the
deposit of the same in court unless and until it has first been offered to the
person interested and he has refused to accept the same. In the present
case, it is an admitted position that the compensation amount was
tendered in this court in the said C.M (Main) 1407/2013 without first
being offered to the petitioner herein. Therefore the same, following the
decision in Gyanender Singh (supra), cannot be regarded as
compensation having been paid to the petitioner.
4. Although the petitioner claims that the physical possession of the
subject land is with the petitioner, this is disputed by the learned counsel
for the respondents. They claim that the possession was taken on
14.07.1987. We need not go into the controversy with regard to the
physical possession. This is so because compensation, as indicated above
has not been paid to the petitioner and the award was made more than
five 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, 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
(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.
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 lands 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
I. S. MEHTA, J
DECEMBER 15, 2014
kb
