Delhi High Court
M/S Bgns Infratech Private ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 April, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~24
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 06.04.2015
+ W.P.(C) 6604/2014 & CM 15706/2014
M/S BGNS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Ateev Mathur, Mr Sumit Bansal and
Ms Richa Oberoi
For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr Vikram Jetly
For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr Pawan Mathur and Mr Himanshu Gupta
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner seeks 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. The
petitioner, consequently, seeks a declaration that the acquisition
proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as „the 1894 Act‟) and in respect of which Award No.14/87-88
dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner‟s land
comprised in Khasra Nos. 329/1 (0-18) and 329/2 (3-17) measuring 4
bighas and 15 biswas in all in Village Satbari, Delhi shall be deemed to
have lapsed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the physical
possession of the subject land has not been taken by the land acquiring
agencies and that the petitioner continues to be in physical possession.
This fact is, however, disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents,
who states that the possession was taken over on 14.07.1987.
3. In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, the same
has not been paid to the petitioner but according to the respondents, the
same has been deposited in the treasury. Therefore, they seek to invoke
the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which was
introduced by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment)
Ordinance, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Ordinance").
4. So far as the applicability of the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of
the 2013 Act is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon by the
respondents inasmuch as it has been held to be prospective in nature and
does not take away vested rights. This has so been held by the Supreme
Court in recent decision in M/s Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No.
4283/2011 wherein the Supreme Court held as under:-
"The right conferred to the land holders/owners of the
acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is the
statutory right and, therefore, the said right cannot be
taken away by an Ordinance by inserting proviso to the
abovesaid sub-section without giving retrospective effect
to the same."
5. The same has been reinforced by the Supreme Court in Karnail
Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7424/2013
decided on 22.01.2015.
6. From the above decisions, it is evident that the said Ordinance is
prospective in nature and the rights created in favour of the petitioner as
on 01.01.2014 by virtue of the 2013 Act are undisturbed by the second
Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which has been introduced by
the said Ordinance.
7. Without going into the controversy with regard to the 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 to the petitioner, but has only been deposited in the
treasury, which does not amount to payment of compensation as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and
Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.
8. All 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) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6
SCC 564;
(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013
decided on 10.09.2014;
(3) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C)
2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(4) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:
WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents also contend that the
petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner is a subsequent
purchaser. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is
settled law that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition
proceedings and he is only entitled to seek compensation. They placed
reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of K.N.
Aswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr. L.Rs. and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and
Ors.: AIR 2014 SC 279. A reference in this connection was also made to
the Supreme Court decision in the case of Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor
of Delhi and Ors.: 2008 (9) SCC 177.
10. There is no doubt that in the context of the 1894 Act the Supreme
Court clearly held that a subsequent purchaser would not have a right to
challenge the acquisition and would only have a right to seek
compensation. But, the position obtaining at present is different. This is a
petition which does not seek to challenge the acquisition proceedings but
seeks a declaration of a right which has enured to the benefit of the
petitioner by virtue of the operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Once the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed because of the operation of
the deeming provision of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the benefit of the
same cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner
is a subsequent purchaser. This is, of course, provided that the conditions
precedent for the application of the deeming provision contained in
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are satisfied.
11. As a result, the petitioner is 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.
12. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 06, 2015
SU
