Delhi High Court
Vikramjit Singh & Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 November, 2014
60
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 17.11.2014
W.P.(C) 4174/2014 & CM 8371/2014
VIKRAMJIT SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr N.S.Vasisht, Mr Vishal Singh and Ms Jyoti Kataria.
For the Respondents : Mr Hashmat Nabi for UOI.
Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B.
Ms Mrinalini Sen Gupta and Ms Mrinmoi Chatterjee 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 petitioners seek 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
No.2 is the sister of petitioner No.1. They seek a declaration that the
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') and in respect of which Award
No.13/87-88 dated 16.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the
petitioners' land comprised in Khasra No.245 measuring 12 bighas and 12
biswas in Village Said-ul-Ajaib be deemed to have lapsed.
2. It is an admitted position 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
five 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.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contends that the
original recorded owner Smt. Chand Ujjal Singh in respect of 7 bighas and
12 biswas in the aforesaid Khasra No.245 still stands in her name and the
names of the petitioners have not been substituted. It is the case of the
petitioners that Smt. Chand Ujjal Singh passed away on 18.03.2009. But,
before that she left a Will in which her portion of 7 bighas and 12 biswas
was bequeathed to the petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1, according to the
learned counsel, was made the executor of the Will. Therefore, according to
the learned counsel, both the petitioners who could be owners of the subject
land either by way of inheritance or by way of Will are represented in court.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though it is
claimed that Smt. Chand Ujjal Singh expired in 2009 her name still appears
in the revenue records. Mr Vasisht appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submitted that the revenue records are not documents of title and for some
reason the petitioners' names have not been mutated.
5. We are not concerned about the title in respect of the subject land and
in any event there is no dispute between the petitioners. This much is clear
that the physical possession of the subject land has not been taken nor has
the compensation been paid by the respondents and the award is more than
five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Therefore, the subject
acquisition in respect of the lands mentioned in the petition has lapsed in
view of the deeming provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
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 17, 2014
mk
