Mamraj & Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 4510 Del

$~50-51(II)

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                             Judgment delivered on: 16.09.2014

+       W.P.(C) 1403/2014
MAMRAJ & ORS                                                        ..... Petitioners
                                     versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                         ..... Respondents

                                                AND

+       W.P.(C) 1404/2014
JAGGAN & ORS                                                        ..... Petitioners

                                     versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                         ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Bhagwat Prasad
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Mr Sanjay Kumar
                      Pathak, Mr Sunil Kumar Jha and Mrs Kiran Pathak for the
                      Respondent/L&B and LAC
                      Mr 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 learned counsel for the petitioners states that this matter is

covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Girish Chhabra vs.

Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on

12.09.2014. He states that although possession of the subject land has

been taken, the award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the 1894 Act') was made more than five years prior to the

commencement 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. In

this case Award No. 18/1992-93 was made on 19.06.1992. He also states

that compensation has not yet been paid to the petitioners. Therefore, the

requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have been fulfilled and the

petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the subject acquisition under

the 1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is situated in Village

Khizrabad, New Delhi in Khasra No. 371-375/11/2/1 measuring 17 bighas 17

biswas in all.

2. Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has

been taken on 14.06.2013, compensation has not been paid to the

petitioners. The Award is also more than five years prior to the

commencement of the 2013 Act. Consequently, the decision of this

Court in Girish Chhabra (supra) applies on all fours and the subject

acquisition has lapsed.

3. The writ petitions are allowed by declaring that the acquisition in

respect of the subject land has lapsed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                       BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



SEPTEMBER 16, 2014                       SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SR