Yogesh Kumar Gupta & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 5608 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 10.11.2014

+       W.P.(C) 5651/2014 & CM No. 13994/2014


YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA & ANR                                         ... Petitioners


                                        versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                             ... Respondents

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

For the Respondents : Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay with Mr Deepak Gupta for UOI
                      Mr Siddharth Panda for R-5
                      Mr Arjun Pant for DDA

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

                              JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners 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 the Award No. 10/87-88 dated 14.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in khasra numbers 451 min (2-13), 448 (1-

01), 470 (4-16), 468 min (2-08), 469 (4-16), 447 min (3-12), 472 min (3-

18), 467 (4-16) and 471 (4-16) measuring 32 bighas and 16 biswas in all in village Shayoorpur, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. While the petitioners claim that the physical possession in respect of the subject land is still with them and has not been taken by the land acquiring agency, the learned counsel for the respondents, however, contend that the possession is with them and was taken on 14.07.1987. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, it is the case of the petitioners that the same has not been paid to them whereas it is the case of the respondents that the said compensation was deposited in court pursuant to an order passed by a Vacation Judge of this court in C.M.(Main) 1407/2013 passed on 30.12.2013. By virtue of that order, the said C.M.(Main), amongst others, was disposed of by recording that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land holders the cheque tendered in each petition would be treated as tendered to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi as of that date i.e. 30.12.2013. According to the respondents this amounts to payment of compensation. However, this issue has already been settled by a decision of this court in Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. WPC 1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014 wherein this court held that unless and until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere deposit of the compensation in court would not be sufficient. The compensation cannot

be regarded as having been paid merely on the deposit of the same in court unless and until it has first been offered to the person interested and he has refused to accept the same. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the compensation amount was tendered in this court in the said C.M (Main) 1407/2013 without first being offered to the petitioners herein. Therefore the same, following the decision in Gyanender Singh (supra), cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioners.

3. In these circumstances, without going into the question of as to whether physical possession of the subject land has been taken by the land acquiring agency or not, it is abundantly clear that compensation has not been paid to the petitioners. The award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and therefore, all the ingredients necessary for the applicability 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

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others:

WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court

(v) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:

WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(vi) Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors:

W.P.(C) 1393/2014 decided by this court on 23.09.2014.

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 lands 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

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

NOVEMBER 10, 2014 SU