Dharam Kaur & Ors vs Lt. Governor-Cum-Administrator ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 6885 Del

$~27
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                            Judgment delivered on: 16th December 2014

+      W.P.(C) 7992/2013 & CM Nos. 16928/2013, 16930/2013 and
       16919/2014

DHARAM KAUR & ORS
                                                                      .... Petitioners
                                       Versus

LT. GOVERNOR-CUM-ADMINISTRATOR AND ORS
                                                                   ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner                     : Balbir Singh with Mr Sameer Jain, Mr Sandeep
                                         Bajaj and Mr Vivek Mohanty.
For the Respondent nos.1, 2 & 4        : Mr Yeeshu Jain & Ms Jyoti Tyagi.
For the Respondent no.3                : Mr Satyavan Kudalwal with Mr A. S. Rao,
                                         Law Officer.
For the Respondent no.5                : Mr Arun Birbal & Mr Sanjay Singh.

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

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioners are 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. A declaration is

sought to the effect that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') are

deemed to have lapsed. By virtue of an award no.128/86-87 dated

09.08.1986, a total area of about 10 Bighas 14 Biswas was said to have

been acquired which belong to the petitioners in Khasra Nos.112/1 and

112/2 of village Shakurpur, Delhi.

2. Out of 10 Bighas and 14 Biswas, 3 Bighas and 11 Biswas was

admittedly taken possession of and the DDA had constructed a metal road

and a children park thereon. Furthermore, 2 Bighas and 2 Biswas of land

in Khasra Nos.112/1 have been acquired for the purpose of the metro

project and is in the possession of DDA, which is to be handed over to

DMRC.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the

petitioner had no objection to the acquisition in respect of 2 Bighas and 2

Biswas which are earmarked for the metro project subject to negotiations

directly with DRMC with regard to the compensation that is to be

received by the petitioners. In so far as that aspect of the matter is

concerned, the petitioners are negotiating with DMRC and to that extent,

land measuring 2 bighas and 2 biswas is excluded from the purview of

this writ petition. The remaining land comprising 4 Bighas and 19

Biswas is allegedly in the possession of the land acquiring agency and the

possession was taken, according to them, on 22.09.1986. This fact is

disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who stated that the

physical possession of the said 4 Bighas and 19 Biswas of land is with the

petitioners even today. It is an admitted position that the petitioners have

not received any compensation for any part of the 10 Bighas and 14

Biswas of land which was the subject matter of the Award no.128/86-87

dated 19.09.1986.

4. Thus, leaving out 2 Bighas and 2 Biswas, which is for the metro

project, in so far as the balance land is concerned, no compensation has

admittedly been received by the petitioners and only the portion

comprising of 3 Bighas and 11 Biswas is admittedly in the possession of

the DDA which has been utilised for the construction of a metal road and

a park for children. With regard to the portion of 4 Bighas and 19

Biswas, there is a dispute with regard to the possession.

5. Since the petitioner has not received any compensation for the said

land and award was also made more than 5 years prior to the

commencement of 2013 Act, the necessary ingredients for invoking the

provisions of section 24(2) of 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.

6. As a result, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the

acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land (except the land

earmarked to be used for the metro project) are deemed to have lapsed. It

is so declared.

7. The respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh acquisition

proceedings with regard to the land measuring 3 Bighas and 11 Biswas

which has been utilised for the construction of the metal road and the park

for children. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that in case

fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated in respect thereof under the

2013 Act, the same shall not be objected to provided compensation is

paid as per the 2013 Act. In case the respondents do not initiate any fresh

acquisition proceedings with regard to the said portion of 3 Bighas and 11

Biswas within a period of six months, the petitioners would be at liberty

to take recourse to such remedies as may be available to them as per law.

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

no order as to costs. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

                                       BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J




DECEMBER 16, 2014                       I. S. MEHTA, J
ab