Kamlesh & Anr vs Hon¿¿¿Ble Lt. Governor Of Delhi & ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 2766 Del

$~26

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 07.04.2015

+                 W.P.(C) 6735/2014 and CM No.15955/2014

KAMLESH & ANR                                                ..... Petitioners



                            versus



HON'BLE LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS                        ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Dhruv Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr Siddharth Panda, Advocate for L&B/LAC
                      Mr Pawan Mathur and Mr Himanshu Gupta, Advocates for DDA


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

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. Mr Siddharth Panda, the learned counsel, has handed over the counter

affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The same 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 already

contained in the writ petition.

2. By way of this writ petition the petitioners are seeking 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 Award No.79A/83-84 (supplementary) dated

12.12.1997 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land

comprised in Khasra Nos. 2797/2026/1675/12 (old) and now the khasra No.

1236 measuring 3 bighas 10 biswas (1/2nd share) in Village Mehrauli shall be

deemed to have lapsed.

3. It is an admitted position that physical possession of the subject land

has not been taken by the land acquiring agency. Insofar as the question of

compensation is concerned, the petitioners state that they have not received

any compensation. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that he is

not in a position to verify this fact inasmuch as the Naksha Muntazamin is

not traceable. In this eventuality, as the fact stands today, the statement made

by the petitioner that they have not received any compensation is

uncontroverted. Therefore, it is clear that neither physical possession of the

subject land has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any

compensation been paid to the petitioners. The award was made more than

five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients 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 decided on 10.09.2014;

(iv) Surinder Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.:

W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 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

lands 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

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J APRIL 07, 2015 SV