Ravi Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 2714 Del

M/S NCC LTD
$~17
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Judgment delivered on: 06.04.2015

W.P.(C) 6616/2014 & CM No.15736/2014

RAVI KUMAR GUPTA                                            ..... Petitioner

                             versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                      ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  :        Mr Madan Lal Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents :        Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi and Mr Siddharth Panda,
                             Advocates for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
                             Mr Dhanesh Relan, Advocate for respondent No.4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this matter is covered

by the decision of this Court in the case of Girish Chhabra vs. Lt. Governor

of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014. He states

that although possession of the subject land has been taken, the award under

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act')

was made more than five years prior to the commencement 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. In this case Award No.20/92-93 was made

on 19.06.1992. He also states that compensation has not yet been paid to

the petitioner. Therefore, the requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

have been fulfilled and the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the

subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is

situated in Village Madanpur Khadar, Tehsil Kalkaji, New Delhi in Khasra

No.505 Min (1-15) measuring 1 bigha 15 biswas in all.

2. Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has been

taken on 03.12.2012, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. The

Award is also more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013

Act. Consequently, the decision of this Court in Girish Chhabra (supra)

applies on all fours and the subject acquisition has lapsed.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the

compensation amount has been deposited in the Court under Section 30/31

of the 1894 Act. But that deposit was made on 28.10.2014. This is much

after 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act had come into force. The acquisition

would be deemed to have lapsed on 01.01.2014 and, therefore, the

subsequent deposit in the Court would be of no consequence. In any event,

the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no dispute

whatsoever and, therefore, such a deposit could not have been made. We

need no examine this aspect of the matter because the deposit was made

much after the 2013 Act came into force i.e. on 01.01.2014.

4. The writ petition is allowed by declaring that the acquisition in respect

of the subject land has lapsed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J APRIL 6, 2015 st