Delhi High Court
M. Salim And Ors vs Union Of India And Anr on 13 April, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 13.04.2015
W.P.(C) 4626/2014 & CM 9201/2014
M. SALIM AND ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Ateev Mathur with Mr Vaibhav Mirg
For the Respondents UOI : Mr Arun Bhardwaj with Ms Neha Garg & Mr Rishi Kapoor.
For the Respondents LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.
For the Respondents DDA : Mr Pawan Mathur with 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 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 Award No.36/1980-81 of 1981 and Award No.
36B/1986-98 (Supplementary) dated 22.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in
respect of the petitioners' land comprised in khasra nos. 669/27 min. (0-16)
and 669/27 min. (3-11) respectively measuring 4 bighas and 7 biswas in all
in village Lado Sarai, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners neither physical
possession of the subject lands has been taken by the land acquiring agency,
nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioners. Mr Yeeshu Jain
appearing on behalf of the LAC states that he is not in a position to either
deny or admit this position inasmuch as the records are not available. The
learned counsel for the DDA, however, submits that apparently possession of
the land was taken on 22.09.1986 however he has nothing to submit with
regard to the payment of compensation. The learned counsel for the
petitioners drew our attention to an order dated 17.12.2012 passed in
W.P.(C) 7851/2012, a copy of which is at page 55 of the paper book, which
does indicate that the possession was with the petitioners and the court had
directed the respondents to examine his representation under section 48 of
the 1894 Act. It is obvious that section 48 would only apply when
possession of land has not been taken. Therefore, it can be safely inferred
that the physical possession of the subject land has not been taken by the
land acquiring agency and that the compensation has also 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 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 13, 2015
kb
