Delhi High Court
K.K. Modi & Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 11 November, 2014
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~37
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 11.11.2014
W.P.(C) 6506/2014 & CM No.15539/2014
K.K. MODI & ANR ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Aditya Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr Ajay Digpaul, Advocate for R-1
Mr Pawan Mathur, Advocate for R-2
Mr Yeeshu Jain, Advocate with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for R-3
Ms Sangeeta Sondhi, Advocate with Mr Ajay Kalra and Mr Abhai
Vohra, Advocates for R-4
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 Award No.10/87-88 dated 20.05.1987 was
made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos.
386 Min (1-14), 386/2 Min (2-12), 389 (4-16), 391 Min (4-6), 392/1 Min (1-
0), 392/2 Min (3-16), 394 (4-16), 395/1 Min (0-4), 395/2 Min (3-0) and 396
(4-6) measuring 30 bighas 10 biswas in Village Sahoorpur, 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. However, with regard to
the question of compensation, it is stated by the respondent/Land Acquisition
Collector that compensation has been paid to the petitioners in respect of
Khasra Nos.394 and 395/1. Insofar as the other khasra numbers are
concerned, it is an admitted position that compensation has not been paid.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the compensation
that was paid in respect of the above mentioned two khasra numbers was
pursuant to an order passed by a Vacation Judge of this Court on 30.12.2013.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that this would not
amount to payment of compensation in view of the clear position enunciated
by this Court in Gyanender Singh & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors.:
W.P.(C) 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 compensation in the Court would not be sufficient. It was
also held that compensation cannot be regarded as having been paid merely
on 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.
4. In the present case we find that while the respondent alleges that
compensation has been paid in respect of the above mentioned two khasra
numbers in the aforesaid manner, the said amount was admittedly not offered
to the petitioners prior to the deposit of the same in Court. Therefore,
following the decision in Gyanender (supra) the same cannot be regarded as
compensation having been paid to the petitioners.
5. It is, therefore, clear that neither physical possession of the subject
land has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any compensation
been paid to the petitioners. The Award was made more than 5 years prior to
the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients 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 decided on 10.09.2014;
(iv) Surinder Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.:
W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this
Court.
(v) Gyanender Singh & Ors vs. Union of India &
Ors.: W.P.(C) 1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014.
6. 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.
7. 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 11, 2014
dn
