Sattar Mohd & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6784 Del

$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                 Judgment delivered on: 15th December 2014

+        W.P.(C) 6550/2014 & CM No.15617/2014
SATTAR MOHD & ORS
                                                                 .... Petitioners
                                  versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
                                                              .... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners :      Mr Sumit Bansal, Advocate
For the Respondents :      Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC with
                           Mr Deepak Gupta Advocate for UOI.
                           Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi,
                           Advocates for R-2/LAC L&B.
                           Mr Pawan Mathur, Advocate for R-
                           3/DDA.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the present petition

is in respect of the very same land which was the subject matter of W.P.(C)

No.6548/2014 titled as Amin Khan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. which

was decided by this court on 17.11.2014. The only difference is that the

petitioners in that case had a 1/6th share in the subject land, whereas the

petitioners in the present case have a 1/3rd share.

2. 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.14/87-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioners 1/3rd share in the land comprised in Khasra Nos.892/1 (2-8),

1052(2-0), 1056(4-16), 1057(4-16), 1058(1-19), 1061/2 Min (3-11), 1064(4-

16) and 1065(3-0) measuring 27 bighas 6 biswas in all in village Satbari,

Delhi shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was

taken on 14.07.1987, 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.

4. 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.

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

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