Delhi High Court
M/S Rck Developers (P) Ltd. vs Union Of India And Anr on 10 November, 2014
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~ 82 (Category-I)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 10.11.2014
W.P.(C) 4777/2014 & CM 9518/2014
M/S RCK DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Sumit Bansal, Mr Ateev Mathur, Ms Richa Oberoi.
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B.
Mr Dhanesh Relan, 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. By way of this writ petition the petitioner is 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 petitioner,
consequently, seeks 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 Award No.15/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 was
made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos.
1319/1, 1319/2, 1318, 1055, 951/1 and 951/2 measuring 12 bighas and 6
biswas in all situated in village Chatterpur, New Delhi, shall be deemed to
have lapsed.
2. It is an admitted position that physical possession of the subject land
has not been taken by the land acquiring agency. Insofar as the question of
compensation is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that it has not
received any compensation. The learned counsel for the respondents
however states that insofar as khasra number 951/1 is concerned, the
compensation was deposited in court pursuant to an order passed by a
Vacation Judge of this court in C.M. (Main) 1401/2013 passed on
30.12.3013. As regards the other khasra numbers no compensation has
admittedly been paid to the petitioner.
3. The question of payment of 'compensation' by depositing the same in
court has 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
person 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 that was
tendered in respect of one khasra number was done only in this court in C.M.
(Main) 1401/2013 without first being offered to the petitioner herein.
Therefore, following the decision in Gyanender Singh (supra) the same
cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioner.
4. 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
lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
5. It is stated by Mr Jain appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 that
khasra number 1055(4-16) does not actually belong to the petitioner and the
land belongs to the custodian of evacuee property. The learned counsel for
the petitioner, however, contends that the said land belongs to the petitioner.
We are making it clear that we have only declared that the acquisition
proceeding in respect of the subject lands have lapsed. We are not giving
any declaration with regard to the title to those lands.
6. 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
kb
