Mehboob & Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 2765 Del

$~38

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 07.04.2015

+       W.P.(C) 8377/2014 & CM 19405/2014
MEHBOOB & ORS                                                  ... Petitioners


                                        versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                    ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners          : Mr B.S. Maan and Mr Vishal Maan

For the Respondent No.1&2 : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent No.3   : Mr Dhanesh Relan and Mr Arush Bhandari

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                             JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 handed over by

Mr Yeeshu Jain is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as he

would be relying on the averments contained in the writ petition.

2. By way of this writ petition, 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. The

petitioners, consequently seek 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 the Award No.

10/87-88 dated 14.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioners' land comprised in khasra numbers 457 (4-16), 458/1 (0-12)

and 458/2 (2-08) measuring 7 bighas and 16 biswas in village Sayoorpur,

shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. It is claimed by the petitioners that the physical possession of the

subject land has not been taken by the land acquiring agency. However,

the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the possession was

taken on 14.07.1987. At best it can be stated that the question of physical

possession is disputed. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, it is

the case of the petitioners that the same has not been paid to them

whereas it is the case of the respondents that the said compensation was

deposited in court pursuant to an order passed by a Vacation Judge of this

court in C.M.(Main) 1407/2013 passed on 30.12.2013. By virtue of that

order, the said C.M.(Main), amongst others, was disposed of by recording

that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land holders the

cheque tendered in each petition would be treated as tendered to the court

of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi as of that date i.e.

30.12.2013. According to the respondents this amounts to payment of

compensation. However, this issue has already been settled by a decision

of this court in Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. WPC

1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014 wherein this court held that unless and

until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere

deposit of the compensation in court would not be sufficient. The

compensation cannot be regarded as having been paid merely on the

deposit of the same in court unless and until it has first been offered to the

person interested and he has refused to accept the same. In the present

case, it is an admitted position that the compensation amount was

tendered in this court in the said C.M (Main) 1407/2013 without first

being offered to the petitioners herein. Therefore the same, following the

decision in Gyanender Singh (supra), cannot be regarded as

compensation having been paid to the petitioners.

4. In these circumstances, while the question of physical possession is

disputed, it is clear that compensation has not been paid to the petitioners.

The award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of

the 2013 Act. All the ingredients necessary for the applicability of section

24(2) of the 2013 Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this court

in the following decisions, stand satisfied:-

(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v.

Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

         (ii)    Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:
                 (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v.

State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others:

WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(v) Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors:

W.P.(C) 1393/2014.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents also sought to place

reliance on Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance,

2014 (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance). However, the same

would not be available to the respondents in view of the Supreme Court's

decisions in M/s Radiance Fincap (P) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

decided on 12.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No.4283/2011 and Karnail Kaur

& Ors. vs State of Punjab & Ors, Civil Appeal No.7424/2013 decided on

22.01.2015 which have held that the Ordinance, which came into effect

on 31.12.2014, shall only have prospective operation and the rights

vested in the land owners by virtue of the 2013 Act on 01.01.2014 cannot

be taken away.

6. 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 lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

7. 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 07, 2015 SU