Sushil Kumar Jain vs Union Of India And Anr
2014 Latest Caselaw 5612 Del

2
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Judgment delivered on: 10.11.2014

W.P.(C) 5739/2014

SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN                                                      ..... Petitioner

                            versus



UNION OF INDIA AND ANR                                             ..... Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Anurag Parashar.
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B.
                      Mr Dhanesh Relan and Mr Arush Bhandari for DDA




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

                                JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this matter is covered

by the decision of this Court in the case of Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor

of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014. He states

that although possession of the subject land has been taken, the award under

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act')

was made more than five years prior to the commencement 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. In this case Award No.8/91-92 was made on

12.02.1992. He also states that compensation has not yet been paid to the

petitioner. Therefore, the requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have

been fulfilled and the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the subject

acquisition under the 1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is situated in

Village Siraspur in Khasra No.715 (4-16), out of which the petitioner claims

to own only 1 bigha.

2. Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has been

taken on 15.09.2004 - 18.09.2004, compensation has not been paid to the

petitioner. The award was also made more than five years prior to the

commencement of the 2013 Act. Consequently, the decision of this Court in

Girish Chhabra (supra) applies on all fours and the subject acquisition has

lapsed.

3. The writ petition is allowed by declaring that the acquisition in respect

of the subject land has lapsed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J NOVEMBER 10, 2014 mk