Delhi High Court
Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 3 November, 2014
$~ 60 (Category-III)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 03.11.2014
+ W.P.(C) 3188/2014 & CM 6634/2014
SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA .... Petitioner
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Jasbir Singh Malik
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B.
Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal for DDA.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking 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. 35/81-82 dated 10.11.1981 was
made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra
Nos. 70/22(4-16), 70/23 (4-16) measuring 9 bighas 12 biswas in all in
village Badli shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land
was taken on 12.11.81, the petitioner disputed 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.
3. 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:-
(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.
4. 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.
5. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
NOVEMBER 03, 2014 V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
kb
