Om Prakash & Ors. vs Lt.Governor Cum Administrator ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 4743 Del

Citation : 2014 Latest Caselaw 4743 Del
Judgement Date : 23 September, 2014

Delhi High Court

Om Prakash & Ors. vs Lt.Governor Cum Administrator ... on 23 September, 2014

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 23.09.2014

W.P.(C) 3066/2013 & CM Nos.5802/2013, 2045/2014



OM PRAKASH & ORS.                                                        ..... Petitioners

                             versus

LT.GOVERNOR CUM ADMINISTRATOR AND ORS. ..... Respondents



Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner    : Mr Salman Khurshid, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sameer Jain and
                        Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Advocates.
For the Respondents   : Ms Renuka Arora, Advocate for DSIDC.
                        Ms Shobhana Takiar, Advocate 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"). The

learned senior counsel for the petitioners states that the present case is

covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Surender Singh v. Union

of India & Ors. : W.P.(C) No.2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014. That was

also a case where physical possession of the land in question had not been

taken nor had any compensation been paid to the land holders. This Court,

following the decisions of the Supreme Court in 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; and a very recent decision of the Supreme Court in (3) Sree Balaji

Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. : Civil

Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014, held that acquisition would

have to be deemed as having lapsed in view of the clear provisions of

Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

2. In the present case, the award in respect of the said land was made on

01.05.2008 and was numbered as award No.6/07-08. The details of the

Khasra numbers and the areas covered by the said khasra numbers are as

under:-

                  S.No.          Khasra No.              Area

                    1.              39/11                3-16

                    2.              39/12                4-11

                    3.             39/14/1               0-04





                       4.              39/17/1                 0-10

                      5.              39/17/2                 1-04

                      6.               39/19                  4-16

                      7.               39/22                  4-16

                      8.              39/23/2                 2-08

                      9.              39/24/1                 1-04

3. Mr. Khurshid, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners, states that some of the khasra numbers, which form part of the

land, have been left out, in respect of which a separate petition would be

filed.

4. While it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that physical

possession of the land has not been taken, the learned counsel for the

respondents disputed this fact. However, we find that the stand taken by the

respondents is not tenable for the simple reason that in a previous writ

petition filed by the petitioners being W.P.(C) 7747/2012, a Division Bench

of this Court had specifically directed as under:-

"We thus direct that the petitioners will continue to enjoy the possession of the land till such time as the order dated 04.12.2008 is complied with by the concerned authorities of the respondents and for a period of fifteen (15) days of the communication of the decision to the

petitioners by the respondents so that in case of an adverse verdict the petitioners are not left remediless.

5. The respondents have not challenged that order and the same has

become final. It is an admitted position that no proceedings for taking

possession were conducted after the order dated 12.12.2012 passed in the

said Writ Petition being W.P.(C) 7747/2012. The obvious corollary to this is

that the petitioners continued to be in possession of the abovementioned

lands. It is an admitted position that compensation has not been paid to the

petitioners. Therefore, all the ingredients necessary for invoking the

provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act stand satisfied. This case is fully

covered by our decision in the case of Surender Singh (supra).

Accordingly, it is declared that the acquisition in respect of the subject lands,

which have been specified above, shall be deemed to have lapsed under the

provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.