Delhi High Court
Shyam Singh & Ors. vs Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. on 17 August, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17.08.2015
+ W.P.(C) 8438/2014 & CM No. 19497/2014
SHYAM SINGH & ORS. .... Petitioners
versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Anuroop P.S., Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain & Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for
L&B/LAC.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. 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. 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. 87/80-81 dated 29.11.1980 was made, inter alia, in respect
of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No. 1009/121 (4-06)
measuring 4 bighas 6 biswas in all in village Madanpur Khadar, New
Delhi shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that out of the 4 bighas 6
biswas of the land which is subject matter of this petition, the possession
has not been taken in respect of 2 bighas 5 biswas whereas the possession
of the balance 2 bighas and 1 biswas has been taken on 08.12.1980. This
is also accepted by the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Insofar as the question of compensation is concerned, the stand of
the petitioners is that they had not received any compensation nor has the
compensation amount been offered to them. On the other hand, the
respondents contend that the records are not available and, therefore, they
are not in a position to either confirm or contradict the statement of the
petitioners that the compensation has not been paid to them. It is stated in
the counter affidavit in paragraph 5 that efforts are still being made to
trace the record with regard to the compensation. Be that as it may, the
position as it obtains today is that the compensation has not been paid to
the petitioners.
4. As noted above, it is an admitted position that physical possession
of part of the subject land (2 bighas 5 biswas) has not been taken and in
respect of 2 bighas 1 biswa the possession has been taken. But, it is clear
that compensation has not been paid to the petitioners. That being the
case, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act clearly apply in the
light of the various decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and this
Court in:
(1) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;
(2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6
SCC 564;
(3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013
decided on 10.09.2014;
(4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C)
2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
5. 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 land 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
AUGUST 17, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
rs
