Delhi High Court
Rajbir Singh vs Land Acquisition Collector/Adm & ... on 21 April, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~44
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 21.04.2015
+ W.P.(C) 3111/2014
RAJBIR SINGH ... Petitioner
versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR/ADM & ORS ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Vivek
For the Respondent no.1 : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.
For the Respondent no.2 : Mr Arun Birbal
For the Respondent no.3 : Ms Sangeeta Sondhi
For the Respondent no.4 : Mr sanjeev Narula with Mr Ajay Kalra
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
By way of this writ petition, 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. The petitioner, consequently seeks 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. 08/2008-09/SW dated 14.11.2008 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in khasra number 630/2 measuring 3 bighas and 3 biswas in village Roshanpura, Najafgarh, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
Possession of the subject land had not been taken as on 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act came into force. It was subsequently taken on 11.03.2014. But for the purposes of considering the case under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the material date is 01.01.2014. As on that date, physical possession of the land was with the petitioner and had not been taken over by the land acquiring agency.
Insofar as the compensation is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the same has not been paid to him whereas it is the case of the respondents that the compensation was deposited in court pursuant to an order dated 30.12.2013 passed by a Vacation Judge of this court in a C.M.(Main). 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 first 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) without first being offered to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the same, following the decision in Gyanender Singh (supra), cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioner.
3. In these circumstances, it is clear that neither physical possession had been taken as on 01.01.2014 nor had compensation been paid to the petitioner. 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:-
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;
Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;
Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013
Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors: W.P.(C) 1393/2014.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents also sought to place reliance on the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (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 of 2014, 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. The same would be applicable to the said Ordinance of 2015.
5. 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 lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
6. 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 21, 2015/kb
