Neelam Arya vs Union Of India And Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 5826 Del

$~44


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Judgment delivered on: 11.08.2015

W.P.(C) 2963/2015 & CM 5305/2015

NEELAM ARYA                                                  ..... Petitioner

                             versus


UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                      ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner                     : Ms Meenu Handa
For the Respondent L&B/LAC             : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi


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 Yeeshu Jain on behalf of

respondent nos. 1 & 2 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. By way of this writ petition the petitioner is 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 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 Award No.15/1987-88 dated 05.06.1987 was

made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos.

1384/2 min, 1385/2 min, 1388 min, 1389 min, measuring 6 bighas 12 biswas

AND 1384/2 min (2-08) and 1389 min (2-08) measuring 4 bighas 16 biswas,

total measuring 11 bighas 8 biswas in village Chatterpur, New Delhi, shall

be deemed to have lapsed.

3. It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the

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

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 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; and

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.:

W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court.

4. 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.

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 AUGUST 11, 2015 kb