Zile Singh & Anr vs The Honble Lieutenant Governor & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 5457 Del

$~29(II)

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                            Judgment delivered on: 03.11.2014

+       W.P.(C) 5599/2014

ZILE SINGH & ANR                                                    ..... Petitioners


                              versus


THE HONBLE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Dhruv Sharma
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi for R-1, 2 & 4.
                       Mr Pawan Mathur for R-3/ DDA


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

                                     JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that this matter is covered

by the decision of this Court in the case of Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor

of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014. He states

that although possession of the subject land has been taken, the award under

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

was made more than five years prior to the commencement 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. In this case Award No.75/1983-84 was made

on 09.12.1983. He also states that compensation has not yet been paid to the

petitioners. Therefore, the requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

have been fulfilled and the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the

subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is

situated in Village Mehrauli in Khasra No.77/10 (4-02), 77/11/1 (1-18)

measuring 6 bighas in all.

2. Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has been

taken on 21.12.1983, compensation has not been paid to the petitioners. The

Award is also more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013

Act. Consequently, the decision of this Court in Girish Chhabra (supra)

applies on all fours and the subject acquisition has lapsed.

3. The writ petition is allowed by declaring that the acquisition in respect

of the subject land has lapsed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J NOVEMBER 3, 2014 SR