Vimal Jain vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 6009 Del

$~21
*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                          Judgment delivered on: 17.08.2015

+       W.P.(C) 7851/2014 & CM No. 18429/2014


VIMAL JAIN                                                     .... Petitioner
                                       versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                            ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Sundeep Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain & Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for L&B/LAC
                      Mr Parvinder Chauhan, Advocate for R-3

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. 24/05-06 dated 3.2.2006 was made, inter alia, in respect of

the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No. 604 (2-08) measuring 2

bighas 8 biswas in all in Village Bhalswa, Jahangirpur, Delhi shall be deemed

to have lapsed.

2. Though the respondents claim that possession of the said land was

taken on 26.04.2008, the petitioners dispute this and maintain that

physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar as the issue of

compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not been

paid.

3. Without going into the controversy of 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. 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) 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; and

(5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:

WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 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 land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

5. Although the learned counsel for the respondents have stated that

there is no clear title over the said land in so far as the petitioner is

concerned, we are making it clear that we are not deciding the question

on title in these proceedings and only the issue with regard to the

acquisition having been lapsed in respect of subject land is decided.

6. The writ petition along with the pending application 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