Pranay Mehta vs Union Of India And Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 5471 Del

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

+       W.P.(C) 4876/2014 and CM No. 9734/2014

PRANAY MEHTA                                                      ... Petitioner

                                        versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                            ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner      : Mr N. S. Vasisht, Mr M.P. Bhargava, Mr Vishal Singh and
                          Ms Jyoti Kataria

For the Respondents : Mr Akshay Makhija with Mr Rohitendra Deb for R-1
                      Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B
                      Mr Pawan Mathur 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 are 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. The

petitioners, consequently, seek a declaration that the acquisition

proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the 1894 Act') and in respect of which Award No.

15/1987-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 747/2 (4-06) and 748 (4-16)

measuring 9 bighas and 2 biswas in Village Chattarpur shall be deemed to

have lapsed.

2. It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the

subject lands has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any

compensation been paid to the petitioner. The award was made more

than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the

ingredients of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the

Supreme Court and this Court in the following decisions stand satisfied:-

(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v.

Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:

(2014) 6 SCC 564;

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v.

State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(iv) Surinder Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.:

W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court.

3. 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 lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

4. 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