Delhi High Court
Dewan Harbhagwan Nanda (Huf) vs Union Of India Ors on 16 September, 2014
$~ 68(II)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 16.09.2014
+ W.P.(C) 2459/2014 & CM 5124/2014
DEWAN HARBHAGWAN NANDA (HUF) ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr P. S. Bindra
For the Respondents : 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 learned counsel for the petitioner 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.10/1987-88 was
made on 14.05.1987. He also states that compensation has not yet been paid
to the petitioner. Therefore, the requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013
Act have been fulfilled and the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the
subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is
situated in Village Sayoorpur in Khasra Nos. 147 min, 149/1, 149/2, 150,
151 and 152 measuring 18 bighas 19 biswas in all.
2. Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has been
taken on 24.11.2005, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. 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. A prayer has also been made seeking return of possession of the
subject land as a consequence of the acquisition having lapsed in view of the
provisions of Section 24(2) of the said Act. It is the contention of the
learned counsel for the DDA there cannot be any direction with regard to the
return of the land to the petitioners inasmuch as the earlier acquisition had
been confirmed by the Supreme Court. He further states that the subject land
has also been handed over to the CISF on 31.08.2012.
4. We are not in agreement with the submission made by Mr Verma, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DDA, inasmuch as the Supreme
Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183 had not
interfered with the order of the High Court which quashed the acquisition
proceedings and directed restoration of possession. The logical sequitur of
the acquisition having lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the said Act is
that the acquiring authority would have no legal basis for retaining the said
land. It is always open to the appropriate government under Section 24(2), if
it so chooses, to initiate proceedings for acquisition afresh in accordance
with the provisions of 2013 Act. But, till that happens, the land, which is the
subject matter of acquisition which has lapsed, cannot be retained by the
acquiring authority or its transferee.
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
