Krishna Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4525 Del

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 16.09.2014

W.P.(C) 1202/2010
KRISHNA GUPTA                                                              .....Petitioner
                             versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                                    .....Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner    : Mr Amit Gupta.

For the Respondents   : Mr Saqib for respondent No.1
                        Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak for respondent No.2
                        Ms Maneka Tripathi Pandey for respondent No.3.



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

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition had been filed under the provisions of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1984 challenging the acquisition of the petitioner‟s land at

Village- Satbari comprised in Khasra No.801 (4 bighas 17 biswas) and

Khasra No.806 (4 bighas and 16 biswas). During the pendency of this writ

petition the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred

to as the „2013 Act‟) has come into effect replacing the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894. The 2013 Act came into effect on 01.01.2014. Section 24(2) of

the 2013 Act has been invoked by the petitioner in his claim that by virtue of

the said provision the subject acquisition has to be deemed to have lapsed.

2. The award was made sometime in 1987-88 which is evident from the

number of the award which is- Award No.14/87-88. Therefore, the award

was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act.

Furthermore, possession of the subject land has, admittedly, not been taken.

This is evident from the order dated 10.10.2012 passed in CM No.2527/2010

in this very writ petition, wherein it has been recorded as under:-

"The possession of the land has not been taken over by the LAC as admitted and, thus, status quo will be maintained as to the nature, title and possession of the land in question."

Compensation has also not been paid to the petitioner. Thus, the conditions

stipulated in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have been satisfied and the

petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed. The

petitioner‟s case is covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pune

Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and

Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183, Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:

(2014) 6 SCC 564 and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State

of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014.

In the latter case it has also been decided that the fact that the possession

could not be taken because of a stay order of a court would not come in the

way of the deeming provision of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The present

case is also covered by our decision in the case of Surender Singh v. Union

of India and Ors., WP(C) No.2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014, wherein

also neither physical possession of the land in question had been taken nor

the compensation had been paid and the award was made more than five

years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act.

3. Consequently, we declare that the acquisition in respect of the subject

land has lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

The writ petition is allowed as above. The parties shall bear their own costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2014/mk