Sukhbir Singh And Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 5918 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 18.11.2014

+       W.P.(C) 4375/2014 & CM 8749/2014


SUKHBIR SINGH AND ANR.                                         ... Petitioners
                                        versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                           ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Murari Gupta
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
                      Mr Siddharth Panda
                      Mr Arjun Pant for the 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 that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which Award No. 75B/1983-84 dated 12.12.1997 was made, inter alia in respect of the petitioners' lands comprised in khasra number 78/4 (1-16), 78-5(4-12),

78/6/1 (4-15), 78/7/1 (1-12), 15/1 (0-12), 118 min (8-11), 73/16/2 (1-08), 73/24 (3-0), 73/25 (4-16) and 78/3/1 (1-19) measuring 31 bighas and 1 biswas in village Mehrauli, New Delhi, be deemed to have lapsed.

2. The petitioners urged that the possession of the subject lands have not been taken nor has the compensation been paid to them. It is their case that as the award was also made in respect of the subject lands more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, all the ingredients necessary for invoking the deeming provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act stand satisfied.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents contend that possession of the subject lands were taken on 27.01.2000 by the land acquiring agency. With regard to compensation it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the compensation amount was deposited in this court in C.M.(Main) 1409/2013 on 30.12.2013. It was contended that as the District Courts were closed for the vacation, the same could not be deposited there and, therefore, the cheque representing the amount of compensation was deposited in this court in the above mentioned C.M.(Main). Therefore, according to the respondents, the compensation had been paid to the petitioners prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Consequently, it was submitted that the acquisition had been completed under the 1894 Act as possession had been taken and compensation had also been paid.

4. With regard to the issue of whether compensation could be regarded as having been paid in the circumstances mentioned above, the same stands covered 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 persons interested, mere deposit of the compensation in court would not be sufficient. The court also held that 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 was tendered in this court in the said C.M (Main) 1409/2013 without first being offered to the petitioners herein. Therefore the same, following the decision in Gyanender Singh (supra), cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioners.

5. Without going into the controversy with regard to 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 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

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others:

WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(v) Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors:

W.P.(C) 1393/2014.10.09.2014.

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 18, 2014 kb