Jagrup Singh And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 5931 Del

$~34
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 18.11.2014

+       W.P.(C) 4418/2014 & CM No.8849/2014 (Stay)


JAGRUP SINGH AND ORS                              .... Petitioners
                                       versus


UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                            ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Raghuvinder Varma, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr Chandra Shekhar, Advocate for R-1 & R-2
                      Mr Pawan Mathur, Advocate for R-3
                      Mr Siddharth Panda, Advocate for R-4 to R-6

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.13/2005-06 dated 12.08.2005 was made, inter alia, concerning the

petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos.5/16 (4-16), 5/17 (4-16), 5/18 (4-16),

5/24 (4-16), 5/25 (4-16), 6/4 (4-12), 6/5 (4-12), 13/22 Min (0-4), 18/20 (4-16)

and 21/2 (1-8) measuring 39 bighas 12 biswas in all in village Begampur, Delhi

shall be deemed to have lapsed. We make it clear that although the petitioners

have referred to Khasra Nos.13/21, 13/25 and 27/1 Min in the prayer clause, the

learned counsel for the petitioners states that these Khasra numbers have been

inadvertently mentioned in the prayer clause and he gives up the same insofar as

this writ petition is concerned.

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

taken on 20.06.2006, 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

land 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 18, 2014 dn