M/S Runweel (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 5614 Del

$~      83(III)
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 10.11.2014

+       W.P.(C) 4780/2014 & CM 9525/2014
M/S RUNWEEL (INDIA) PVT. LTD.                                .... Petitioner
                                       versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                             ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Naresh Kaushik, B. Tripathy
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain, Ms Jyoti Tyagi.
                      Mr Pawan Mathur
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. 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') in respect of which

Award No. 14/87-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of

the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 43/1 (2-13), 43/2(2-03),

44 (4-12), 45 (2-04), 46 (4-16), 47 (1-02), 68 (4-16), 69 (4-12), 70 (2-04),

71/1 (1-0), 71/2/1 ( 1-04), 71/2/2 (2-11), 72/1 (2-08) 72/2 (2-08) and

119/1 (0-08) measuring 41 bighas and 10 biswas in all situated in the

revenue estate of village Satbari, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have

lapsed.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents claimed that the

possession in respect of khasra numbers 43/1, 43/2, 44, 69, 71/2/1,

71/2/2, 72/1, 72/2 and 119/1 was taken on 14.07.1987. In respect of other

khasra numbers, the admitted position is that the physical possession

remains with the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that

physical possession in respect of the entire land has not been taken and is

with the petitioner. 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 in

respect of the khasra numbers which are disputed, 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 petitioner is 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
kb