Phire Ram vs Union Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6147 Del

$~97
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 25.11.2014

+       W.P.(C) 4456/2014


PHIRE RAM                                                      .... Petitioners
                                       versus


UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                           ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Rajeev Sharma, Advocate with Mr Pankaj Dubey and Ms
                      Rishu Mishra, Advocates
For the Respondents : Ms Abha Malhotra, Advocate for R-1
                      Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for R-2 to R-4
                      Mr Pawan Mathur, Advocate for R-5

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

                                        JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. Mr Yeeshu Jain has handed over the counter affidavit on behalf of

respondent No.4 [LAC (South East)]. The same is taken on record. The

learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file the rejoinder affidavit.

2. The petitioner seeks 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.03/1997-98 dated 05.12.1997 (followed by corrigendum dated 10.12.1997)

was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra

Nos.291 (4-16), 292 (2-4), 293 (1-12), 293 /1 (0-6), 294 (4-16), 295 (4-16), 306

(4-16), 307 (4-18) and 308 (4-10) measuring 32 bighas 14 biswas in all in

village Aali shall be deemed to have lapsed.

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

taken on 26.05.1998, the petitioner disputes this and maintains 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.

4. 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.

5. As a result, the petitioner is 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.

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 25, 2014 dn