Ramnik Singh Uppal & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 5465 Del

(III)
        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 03.11.2014

+       W.P.(C) 6218/2014 and CM No. 15031/2014

RAMNIK SINGH UPPAL & ORS                                        ... Petitioners

                                        versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                            ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner      : Mr Sumit Bansal, Mr Ateev Mathur and Ms Richa Oberoi

For the Respondents : Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj for UOI
                      Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B
                      Mr Pawan Mathur, Advocate for R-3
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
                    JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioners seek 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. 14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 620 (4-16), 621/1 (1-

09), 621/2 (3-07), 622 (2-00) and 623/2 (1-08) measuring 15 bighas and

16 biswas in all in village Satbari shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. The respondents state that possession in respect of Khasra No. 620

(4-16) has not been taken but possession in respect of the other Khasra

numbers referred to above was taken on 30.09.1987. The petitioners

dispute the factum of taking over of possession and maintain that the

entire land in question is in their physical possession. However, insofar

as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that

the same has not been paid.

3. Insofar as Khasra No. 620 is concerned, it is an admitted position

that possession has not been taken. Insofar as the other Khasra numbers

are concerned, there is a controversy with regard to the physical

possession having been taken or not. However, without going into that

controversy, 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 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.

5. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V. KAMESWAR RAO NOVEMBER 3, 2014 SU