Pritam Kaur vs Union Of India & Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 2939 Del

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                            Judgment delivered on: 13.04.2015

+ W.P.(C) 8414/2014 & CM No.19455/2014

PRITAM KAUR                                                        ...       Petitioner

                              versus

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS                                            ...       Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:-
For the Petitioner           : Mr N.S. Vasisht with Mr Vishal Singh, Mr M.P. Bhargava
                               and Ms Jyoti Kataria
For the Respondents 1 & 2    : Mr Manish Mohan with Mr Manish Rana Singh and
                               Ms Hina Shaheen
For the Respondent No.3/DDA : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal
For the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Mr Sunil Kumar Jha and
                               Mr Kushal Raj Tater


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

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter-affidavit handed over by Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak on

behalf of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 is taken on record. The learned counsel for

the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as he

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

2. 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. A declaration is sought to the effect that the

acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter referred to as „the 1894 Act‟) in respect of which Award No.

33/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioner‟s land comprised in Khasra Nos. 962/2 (2-08), 963 (4-16), 972 (4-

16), 973/2 (2-08) and 977/3 (1-08) measuring 15 bighas and 16 biswas in all

in village Mahipalpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said

land was taken on 27.03.2001. This is disputed by the petitioner, who claims

to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.

4. 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, 2015 (hereinafter

referred to as "the said Ordinance").

5. Insofar 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 it is prospective in operation and does not take away

the vested rights. With regard to a similar provision introduced by the

Ordinance of 2014, the Supreme Court in a 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 has 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."

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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, 2014 dutt