Deepak Seth vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6883 Del

$~

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                               Judgment delivered on: 16.12.2014

+       W.P.(C) 7895/2014

DEEPAK SETH
                                                                    .... Petitioner
                                       versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                                                                 ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner                     : Ms Geeta A.Kumar.
For the Respondent no.1                : Mr Vivek Goyal, CGSC and Ms Shipra Shukla.
For the Respondent no.3                : Mr Pawan Mathur.
For the Respondent nos.4 & 5           : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyogi Tyagi.

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 Yeeshu Jain, on behalf of

Respondent nos.4 & 5 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder-affidavit, as she would be

relying on the averments made in the writ petition. The counter affidavit

filed on behalf of respondent No.3 is also taken on record. The learned

counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder to this

counter affidavit also for the same reason.

2. 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 Nos.25/2, 26/2, 24/2, 25/1 and 26/1, measuring 10 bighas in Village Satbari, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. 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 KNAswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr. LRs.& Ors. Vs. State of

Karnataka & Ors.: AIR 2014 SC 279. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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:-

(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

6. 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.

7. 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 16, 2014 'dc'