Santosh Sharma vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 7127 Del

$~      10

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 23.12.2014

+       W.P.(C) 6222/2014 & CM 15039/2014

SANTOSH SHARMA                                                    .... Petitioner
                              versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                  ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner                     : Mr Rajiv Kumar Ghawana
For the Respondent Nos. 1&2            : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak
For the Respondent No.3                : Mr Ajay Verma.



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 on behalf of respondent nos.

1&2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not

wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as he would be relying on 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. 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 Nos. 89/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 and 234/1986-87 dated

19.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land

comprised in khasra Nos. 409 (6-16) and 410/1 (0-15) measuring 7 bighas

and 11 biswas in all in village Malik Pur Chhawani, Delhi, shall be

deemed to have lapsed.

3. According to the learned counsel for the respondents possession of

14 biswas from khasra no. 410/1 was taken on 23.09.1986. The petitioner

maintains that physical possession is still with them even in respect of

these 14 biswas of land. Insofar as the balance land is concerned, it is an

admitted position that the respondents have not taken physical possession

of the same. 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 with

regard to the 14 biswas referred to above, 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 and physical

possession of the balance land has also not been taken. 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 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.

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

no order as to costs.

                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J




DECEMBER 23,2014                         I.S. MEHTA
kb