Delhi High Court
Rajan Anand vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 3 August, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 03.08.2015
+ WP(C) No. 8407/2014
RAJAN ANAND .... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr B.S. Maan, Mr Vishal Maan, Mr B. Tripathy and
Mr Naresh Kaushik
For the Respondent Nos. 1&2 : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA/R-3 : Mr Pawan Mathur
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. 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.14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect
of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No. 975 measuring 4 bighas
and 16 biswas in all in village Satbari, New Delhi, shall be deemed to
have lapsed.
2. The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said
land was taken on 14.07.1987. This is disputed by the petitioner, who
claims to be in actual physical possession of the subject land. At this
juncture we may also point out that one Mr O.P. Sachdeva has filed CM
No. 5974/2015 seeking impleadment in this writ petition on the ground
that he is the owner in possession. This fact is vehemently disputed by
the petitioner who claims to be the owner in possession. As pointed out
above, physical possession is said to have been taken by the land
acquiring agency on 14.07.1987. Therefore, the situation which prevails
is that the issue with regard to physical possession between the petitioner
and the said Mr O.P. Sachdeva on the one hand and the land acquiring
agency on the other is disputed. As regards ownership and title, that fact
is also in dispute between the petitioner and the said Mr Sachdeva and
this court is not entering into that controversy. The petitioner as well as
the said Mr Sachdeva would have to independently fight out their claim
to title in an appropriate proceeding before an appropriate forum. We are
here only concerned with the question of the acquisition proceedings
under the 1894 Act having lapsed or not.
3. 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").
4. So far 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 as the Ordinance of 2014 has been held to be
prospective in nature and does not take away vested rights. This has so
been held by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in M/s Radiance
Fincap (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.01.2015
in Civil Appeal No. 4283/2011 wherein the Supreme Court 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."
5. The same has been reinforced by the Supreme Court in Karnail
Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7424/2013
decided on 22.01.2015.
6. From the above decisions, it is evident that the said Ordinance of
2014 is prospective in nature and the rights created in favour of the
petitioners 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. The same would apply in respect of
the said Ordinance of 2015.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. As a result, it is declared that the said acquisition proceedings
initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the said land have been lapsed
on account of the deeming provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
10. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. We are once
again making it clear that we are not deciding any dispute with regard to
the title and that remains to be settled between the petitioner on the one
hand and the said Mr Sachdeva on the other hand before an appropriate
court. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 03, 2015
SU
