Veena Mahajan & Anr vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 4513 Del

$~84(III+I)

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 16.09.2014

+       W.P.(C) 3729/2014 & CM 7551/2014

VEENA MAHAJAN & ANR                                           ..... Petitioners
                             versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                   ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr B. S. Maan
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Mr Sanjay Kumar
                      Pathak with 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 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. 2/1998-99 dated 06.01.1999 was made, inter alia, in respect of

the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1271 (1 bigha 2 biswas) and

1283 (1 bigha 2 biswas) in village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri shall be

deemed to have lapsed.

2. In this case, the respondents admit that possession has not been taken in

respect of Khasra No. 1283 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas. But, it is contended

by the respondents that possession has been taken in respect of Khasra

No. 1271 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas. The learned counsel for the petitioners

states that this possession is only a paper possession and actual physical

possession remains with the petitioner. This fact is, however, disputed by the

learned counsel for the respondents.

3. This case is clearly covered under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act even if

the possession with regard to one part of the land is disputed. This is so

because in respect of both the khasra numbers, no compensation has admittedly

been paid to the petitioners and the Award is more than five years prior to the

commencement of the 2013 Act. The acquisition in question is deemed to

have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as

interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases:-

(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 lands 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