Ninety Nine General Retail Pvt. ... vs Union Of India & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 8929 Del

$~38

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                              Judgment delivered on: 01.12.2015

+       W.P.(C) 16/2015
NINETY NINE GENERAL RETAIL PVT. LTD.                                    ..... Petitioner
                                  versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                             ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Ms Richa Oberoi and Mr Ateev Mathur
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for L& B/LAC.
                      Mr Dhansh Relan, Standing Counsel for DDA
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                   JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

W.P.(C) 16/2015 & CM No.32/2015(stay)

1. 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.36/80-81 dated 19.06.1980 was made, inter alia, in

respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No. 172 measuring 2 bighas

17 biswas in Village Lado Sarai, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

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

land 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.

3. 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.

4. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no

order as to costs.

                                                  BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



DECEMBER 01, 2015/'sn'                               SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J