Ashwal Vaderaa vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 3419 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 30.07.2014

+       W.P.(C) 1897/2014



ASHWAL VADERAA                                                   ... Petitioner

                                        versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                             ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner      : Mr V.P. Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms Anju
                          Bhattacharya, Mr Elgin Matt John and Mr Ashwal Vadera
                          with petitioner in person

For the Respondents : Mr Rakesh Khanna, Senior Advocate with Mr Ajay Verma for
                      DDA
                      Mr Yeeshu Jain and Mr Jyoti Tyagi for L&B and LAC
                      Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak for GNCTD

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                   JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari essentially declaring the

acquisition proceedings which had been initiated by virtue of a notice

under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 19.09.1967 as

having lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is stated in the petition that after the

Section 4 notification dated 19.09.1967, the declaration under Section 6

was issued on 12.02.1968 and the award in respect of the land was made

on 07.03.1991 under the 1894 Act. The entire award was in respect of

the petitioner's land alone.

2. It is the petitioner's case that since the award was made more than

5 years prior to the coming into effect of the said 2013 Act and because

no possession of the land was taken nor was any compensation paid, by

virtue of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the acquisition

has lapsed.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Land Acquisition

Collector as well as the Land and Building Department submitted that

though possession was taken on 26.08.2005, that had been done despite

there being an order of status quo having earlier been passed by this court

in W.P.(C) No. 1398/1994. The order dated 25.02.2009 passed in the

said writ petition was referred to wherein the entire circumstances under

which the possession was taken has been related. In conclusion, this

court in the said writ petition in its order dated 25.02.2009 observed that

in the circumstances there cannot be any question of taking over

possession after 25.03.1994 as status quo in respect of possession was

directed to be maintained in terms of the said order. The court

specifically noted that the consequence of this would be that the

possession, if taken over after 25.03.1994, would be in breach of the

order of status quo and would not be possession in accordance with law.

4. That being the position, it can be safely stated that possession of

the said land was not taken at all in law. Insofar as payment of

compensation is concerned, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the Land Acquisition Collector and the Land and Building Department of

the Government of NCT of Delhi has candidly stated that the same was

neither paid to the petitioner nor deposited in court in terms of Section 31

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

5. Mr Ajay Verma, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the

DDA, for whose benefit the said acquisition had been initiated, however,

contended that compensation had been paid and possession had also been

taken. We do not agree with this submission of Mr Verma. Insofar as the

question of possession is concerned, the order passed by the Division

Bench on 25.02.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 1398/1994 makes it clear that the

same cannot be regarded as possession in law. With regard to the

payment of compensation, the mere fact that the DDA made the funds

available to the Land Acquisition Collector would not amount to payment

of compensation. The exact manner in which the compensation is

required to be paid has been specifically indicated by the Supreme Court

in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another v. Harakchand

Misirimal Solanki and Others: (2014) 3 SCC 183. The Supreme Court,

in the said decision, categorically held as under:-

"From the above, it is clear that the award pertaining to the subject land has been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. It is also admitted position that the compensation so awarded has neither been paid to the landowners / persons interested nor deposited in the court. The deposit of compensation amount in the Government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners / persons interested. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the subject land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act."

(underlining added)

6. As a result, it is clear that neither possession was taken nor

compensation paid to the petitioner. It is only the petitioner's land which

was the subject matter of the award which, admittedly, had been made in

1981 which was more than five years prior to the commencement of the

2013 Act. Consequently, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

get triggered and as a result the acquisition of land shall be deemed to

have lapsed thereunder.

7. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J




JULY 30, 2014                              SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SU