Mahajan Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6161 Del

57
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 25.11.2014

W.P.(C) 6775/2014 & CM 16028/2014

MAHAJAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.                                            ..... Petitioner



                             versus


GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.                                       ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Vishal Maan.

For the Respondents   : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B.
                        Mr Manu Mridul, Mr Rajat Agnihotri and Ms Ragini for DDA.


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

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit handed over by the learned counsel for the

respondent Nos.1 and 2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioner does not wish to file a rejoinder affidavit.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking 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. The petitioner,

consequently, seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894

Act') and in respect of which the Award No.15/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 was

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

Nos.1274 (3-07), 1275 (4-16), 1276/2 (4-03) and 1279/2 (2-18) measuring

15 bighas 4 biswas in Village- Chattarpur, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. It is an admitted position that the physical possession of the subject

land has not been taken by the land acquiring agency. However, insofar as

the compensation is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the same

has not been paid to them whereas it is the case of the respondents that the

said compensation was deposited in court pursuant to an order passed by a

Vacation Judge of this court in C.M.(Main) 1411/2013 passed on

30.12.2013. By virtue of that order, the said C.M.(Main), amongst others,

was disposed of by recording that without prejudice to the rights and

contentions of the land holders the cheque tendered in each petition would be

treated as tendered to the court of the learned Additional District Judge,

Delhi as of that date i.e. 30.12.2013. According to the respondents this

amounts to payment of compensation. However, this issue has already been

settled 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 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) 1411/2013 without first being offered to the

petitioner herein. Therefore the same, following the decision in Gyanender

Singh (supra), cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the

petitioner.

4. In these circumstances, it is clear that neither physical possession of

the subject land has been taken by the land acquiring agency nor has any

compensation been paid to the petitioner. The award was made more than

five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients

necessary for the applicability 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.

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

lands 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 mk