Mohd. Naseem & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 5864 Del

62
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Judgment delivered on: 17.11.2014

W.P.(C) 4939/2014 & CM 9887/2014

MOHD. NASEEM & ORS                                                       ..... Petitioners



                              versus


UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                                  ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr N.S.Vasisht, Mr Vishal Singh, Ms Jyoti Kataria and
                      Mr M.P.Bhargava.

For the Respondents   : Mr Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Mr Rohitendra Deb and
                        Ms Sanjugeeta Mokhtan for UOI.
                        Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B.
                        Mr Arjun Pant for DDA.



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

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. 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. 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.67/83-84 dated 27.10.1983 and Supplementary Award No.67A/83-84

dated 06.08.1985 were made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' lands

comprised in Khasra Nos.5 (6-17), 6 (6-6), 533/7 (4-7) and 536/8 (7-17)

measuring 25 bighas 7 biswas in all in Village- Ladha Sarai, Tehsil

Mehrauli, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said lands was

taken on 05.08.2004, the petitioners dispute this and maintain that physical

possession has not been taken. However, insofar as the issue of

compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not been

paid.

3. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, 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.

4. 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.

5. 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