Pawan Mathur & Ors vs Delhi Development Authority & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 5933 Del

$~53

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

+       W.P.(C) 5171/2014 & CM No.10295/2014

PAWAN MATHUR & ORS                                     .... Petitioners


                                       versus


DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate with Mr Ajayinder
                      Sangwan, Mr Tarunesh Kumar and Mr Rohan Sharma,
                      Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr Dhanesh Relan, Advocate with Mr Arush Bhandari,
                      Advocate for R-1
                      Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for R-2 & R-3

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.22/2005-06 dated 28.12.2005 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos.13/1 (01-08), 21 (4-16), 22 (4-16),

23/1 (1-02), 24/1 Min (1-01) and 24/2 Min (0-04) all falling within rectangle

No.83 measuring 13 bighas 7 biswas in all in village Karala shall be deemed to

have lapsed.

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

taken on 21.02.2007 (except Khasra No.24/2), 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