Dr John Mukhopadhyay vs Uoi & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 4836 Del

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Judgment delivered on: 25.09.2014

W.P.(C) 4324/1994
DR JOHN MUKHOPADHYAY                                             ..... Petitioner

                            versus

UOI & ORS                                                        ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Manish Kumar, Mr Piyush Kaushik and Ms Nalini Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Mr Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocate for R-1 &
                      R-3
                      Mr Arun Birbal, Mr Sanjau Singh and Mr Amit Tiwari, Advocate for
                      R-2/DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
                    JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. Although this writ petition was filed way back in 1994 and the

acquisition was challenged on the ground that the objections under Section

5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were heard by one authority and

decided by another, the situation has completely altered in view 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner states

that because of the 2013 Act, the subject acquisition, which pertained to the

Award No.15/1987-88 in respect of the subject land at village Chattarpur,

has to be deemed to have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of

the 2013 Act. He states that the possession of the land in question has not

been taken by the respondents nor has compensation been paid to the

petitioners. The award has also been made more than five years prior to the

commencement of the 2013 Act. It was, therefore, contended that all the

ingredients necessary for invoking the provisions of Section 24(2) of the

2013 Act have been satisfied. He placed reliance on the recent decision of

this Court in Surender Singh v. Union of India & Ors. : W.P.(C)

No.2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended

that although possession has not been taken of the land in question,

compensation has been paid as, according to them, the same was deposited

in this Court in CM (M) No.1411/2013 on 30.12.2013 as it was contended

that the District Courts were closed for vacation and the same could not be

deposited there. Consequently, the cheques representing the amount of

compensation was deposited in this Court in the above CM(M) 1411/2013.

It was contended that as a result of the deposit, it will have to be considered

as if the compensation had to be paid to the petitioner prior to the

commencement of 2013 Act. This submission of the learned counsel for the

respondent is not tenable in view of the decision of this Court in Gyanender

Singh v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No.1393/2014 decided on

23.09.2014, wherein the identical point raised by the respondents has been

negated.

3. In view of the decisions of this Court in Surender Singh (supra) and

Gyanender Singh (supra), the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the

subject acquisition as per award No. 15/1987-88 dated 05.06.1997 in respect

of khasra No.663/1 measuring 3 bighas and 14 biswas, 663/2 measuring 1

bigha and 2 biswas, 664/3 measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas and 665

measuring 3 bighas and 4 biswas 666 measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas

totalling 17 bighas and 12 biswas situated in village Chattarpur shall be

deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

4. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2014 'sn'