Delhi High Court
M/S Capital Land Builder Pvt. ... vs Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 10 November, 2014
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10.11.2014
+ W.P.(C) 4769/2014 & CM 9510/2014
M/S CAPITAL LAND BUILDER PVT. LIMITED ... Petitioner
versus
GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ... Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 4771/2014 & CM 9511/2014
M/S CAPITAL LAND BUILDER PVT. LIMITED ... Petitioner
versus
GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Naresh Kaushik with Mr B. Tripathy
For the Respondents : 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 SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner in both these writ petitions are the same and the
issues involved are also the same. The only difference being in the khasra
numbers in the two petitions. For this reason, the writ petitions are being
disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The petitioner seeks 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') ought to be deemed
to have lapsed insofar as the petitioner's lands are concerned. The Award
No. 14/1987-88 was made on 26.05.1987, inter alia, in respect of
petitioner's lands comprised in khasra numbers 741 (5-0), 849(4-09), 852
(2-14), 854 (4-16), 855 (1-0), 874 (3-07), 878/2 (1-12), 881/2 (0-17), 885
(4-16), 886 (4-16), 887 (4-0), 891 (4-16), 893 (4-16), 898 (2-15), 901 (0-
15), 903/1 (2-6), 905 (4-13), 906 (7-12), 907 (1-0), 915 (2-10), 924 (2-
04), 925 (4-16), 926 (2-11), 931 (4-15), 937/2 (2-2), 956 (3-18), 967 (1-
16), 969 (4-12) and 970 (4-10) measuring 99 bighas 4 biswas in all
situated in village Satbari, New Delhi, and forming the subject matter of
W.P.(C) 4769/2014.
3. The petitioner's land also comprises of khasra nos. 119/2 (0-1),
301/2 (2-0), 1072 (2-8), 1061/1 (6-2), 1078/1 (1-7), 1074 (4-1), 890/2 (2-
8), 884/2 (1-8) and 900/2/2 (1-17), forming the subject matter of W.P.(C)
4771/2014.
4. Insofar as the question of possession is concerned, it is admitted by
the respondents that possession in respect of the following khasras has
not been taken:- 885/1 (2-07), 887 (4-00), 903/1 (2-06), 905 (4-13), 906
(7-12) and 907 (1-00) in W.P.(C) 4769/2014. As regards the remaining
khasras in both the writ petitions, it is claimed by the respondents that
they have taken possession thereof on 14.07.1987 and 30.09.1987.
However, the petitioner contends that the entire land is in the physical
possession of the petitioner.
5. Insofar as the question of compensation is concerned, it is an
admitted position that the same has not been paid to the petitioner.
6. Without going into the controversy of physical possession in
respect of the disputed khasras, 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.
7. As a result, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the said
acquisition proceeding initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the
subject lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
8. The writ petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall
be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
NOVEMBER 10, 2014
kb
