Tejpal Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6783 Del

$~37(III)
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                              Judgment delivered on: 15th December, 2014

+       W.P.(C) 7150/2014 & CM 16788/2014
TEJPAL SINGH & ORS                                              .... Petitioners
                                       versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                            ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner                     : Mr Sandeep Bajaj
For the Respondent nos.1 & 2           : Mr Ripudaman Singh Bhardwaj CGSC with
                                         Mr M.P. Singh and T.P.Singh.
For the Respondent no.3                : Ms Ruhi Chopra

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE I. S. MEHTA

                                  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. 24-A/74-75 dated 24.06.1983 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 191/2(1-5) &

192/2 (1-0) measuring 2 Bigha 5 Biswas in all in village Sultanpur shall

be deemed to have lapsed.

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

was taken on 27.06.1983, 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 respondent has however taken an

objection that the petitioners are not the recorded owners of the subject

land. First of all, we are not concerned with the question of title in these

proceedings. Secondly, the petitioners are the sons and daughters of late

Sh. Joginder Singh who was admittedly recorded as the owner.

Therefore, this objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent

is of no consequence.

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. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be

no order as to costs.

                                          BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J




DECEMBER 15, 2014/ab                      I. S. MEHTA, J