Raghubir Singh & Ors vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 7068 Del

$~26
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 22.12.2014

+       W.P.(C) 8072/2014 & CM 18850/2014
RAGHUBIR SINGH & ORS
                                                                      .... Petitioners
                                       versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
                                                                    ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner                     : Mr Rajiv Kr. Ghawan
For the Respondent no.2                : Mr Siddharth Panda and Mr Priyabrat Sahu
For the Respondent no.3                : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal

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 the learned counsel for the

respondent no.2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as he

would be relying upon the averments made in the writ petition.

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.21/1992-93 dated 18.06.1992 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioners land comprised in Khasra No.431 min measuring 2 bighas and

5 biswas in all in village-Jasola, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the possession

of the subject land was taken on 19.01.2006. The learned counsel for the

petitioners disputes this position and maintains that the physical

possession of the subject land is with the petitioners. In so far as the

compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that no

compensation has been paid. 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 KN Aswathnarayana 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 there is

a dispute with regard to the physical possession of the subject land.

However, there is no dispute that compensation has not been paid to the

original owner or to the petitioners. Without going into the controversy

with regard to physical possession, the petition can be decided as the

essential ingredients of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have been satisfied

inasmuch as the compensation has not been paid and the award has been

made more than 5 years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act.

This is settled in the following decisions of the Supreme Court and this

court:

(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

6. 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.

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

no order as to costs.

                                          BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J




DECEMBER 22, 2014                          I. S. MEHTA, J
ab