Delhi High Court
Vijay Dhawan Huf vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 September, 2014
$~59(III)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 16.09.2014
+ W.P.(C) 2022/2014 & CM 4207/2014
VIJAY DHAWAN HUF ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Chetan Sharma, Sr Advocate with Mr Rishi Agrawala and
Ms Malavika Lal
For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Mr Sunil Kumar Jha and Mrs Kiran
Pathak for the Respondent/L&B and LAC.
Ms Ajay Verma for DDA.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. 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. 15/1987-88 dated 06.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of
the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1856/1, 1856/2/2, 1856/3,
1856/4, 1860/2, 1857 min and 1858 measuring 16 bighas 6 biswas in all in
village Chattarpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land
was taken on 31.12.2013, 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.
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 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.
5. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SR
