Tejpal Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6888 Del

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

+ 	W.P.(C) 7221/2014
TEJPAL SINGH & ORS.					.... Petitioners
					versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.					..... Respondents
			 
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner	: Mr N.S.Vasisht, Advocate.
For the Respondents  	: Mr Siddharth Panda, Advocate for LAC/L & B.
 
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 Siddharth Panda, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 (Land Acquisition Collector) has been taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder-affidavit, as he would be relying on the averments made in the writ petition.

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. 75/83-84 dated 09.12.1983 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra No.76/27 (4-19), measuring 4 bigha and 19 biswa in village Mehrauli shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 04.03.2000, 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:-

Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;

Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

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


DECEMBER 16, 2014	    	    	  I.S.MEHTA, J
'dc'