Delhi High Court
Subhash & Ors vs Land Acquisition Collector ... on 30 September, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 30.09.2014
W.P.(C) 2482/2014
SUBHASH & ORS .... Petitioners
versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Deepak Khosla, Advocate with Mr Inder Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain, Advocate with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate
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.50A/Suppl./1969-70 dated 04.11.1981 was made, inter alia, in
respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 4039/2593/838,
4039/2593/839, 4039/2593/840, 4037/2892/1906, 836-837, 896, 914,
957, 1265, 4037/796, 4053/841, 1028/1, 1237/1, 1238/1, 1905/836-837,
1853/788, 898, 966 and 1263 measuring 26 bighas and 4 biswas in all in
village Tughlaqabad shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land
was taken on 23.11.1981 and 19.09.1996, the petitioners dispute this and
maintain that physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar
as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it
has not been paid.
3. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, this
much is clear that the Award was made more than five years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been
paid. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of
the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the
following cases stand satisfied:-
(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 land 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 30, 2014 SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
dn
