Society For Innovative Education ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 6052 Del

$~43
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 18.08.2015

+       WP(C) No. 3966/2015 & CM 7080/2015

SOCIETY FOR INNOVATIVE EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
                                        .... Petitioner
                       versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                           ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner                     : Mr S.K. Rout with Mr Vinay Kumar
For the Respondent DDA                 : Mr Pawan Mathur with Mr Hmanshu Gupta
For the Respondent L&B/LAC             : Mr Siddharth Panda

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit of respondent nos. 1 & 2 handed over by Mr

Panda is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not

wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as all the necessary averments are

contained in the writ petition.

2. 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 Nos.991 (4-16), 992 (4-16),

993 (3-00), 985/2 min (1-00) and 1034/2/1 (2-3) measuring 15 bighas 15

biswas in all in village Satbari, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have

lapsed.

3. 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.

4. 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").

5. 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 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."

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 18,2015 kb