Ramesh Malik & Anr vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi &Ors;
2014 Latest Caselaw 5606 Del

$~24
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 10.11.2014

+       W.P.(C) 4236/2014 & CM No.8507/2014

RAMESH MALIK & ANR                                     .... Petitioners

                                       versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI &ORS                             ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Lalit Kumar Rawal, Advocate with Mr Ram Kumar Ranga
                      and Mr Vishal Thakur, Advocates
For the Respondents :Mr Yeeshu Jain, Advocate with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
                     R-1 & R-2
                     Ms Mrinalini S. Gupta, Advocate with Ms Ruhi Chopra,
                    Advocate for R-2

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

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. Mr Yeeshu Jain states that the counter affidavit has been filed vide

diary No.194634 dated 13.10.2014. The same be taken on record. He

has, however, handed over a copy of the counter affidavit which has been

filed. The copy is also taken on record.

2. 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.1/98-99 dated 24.04.1998 was made, inter alia, in respect of

the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos.42//4 Min (0-13), 7 Min

(1-07) and 14 (1-00) measuring 3 bighas in all in village Shahbad

Daulatpur, New Delhi shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land

was taken on 17.11.2007, the petitioners dispute 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be

no order as to costs.

                                          BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J




NOVEMBER 10, 2014                          SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
dn