R.S.Retail Stores Private ... vs Union Of India & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 9105 Del

$~44

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 07.12.2015
+       W.P.(C) 9225/2014
R.S.RETAIL STORES PRIVATE LIMITED                               ... Petitioner


                                        versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                            ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner      : Mr N.P. Sahni and Mr Ruchesh Sinha.

For the Respondents : Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj for R-1/Union of India.
                      Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for
                      L&B/LAC.
                      Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing Counsel for the DDA.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                              JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

W.P.(C) 9225/2014 & CM No.20958/2014(stay)

1. By way of this writ petition, 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. 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 the Award

No. 13/87-88 dated 16.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioner's land comprised in khasra numbers 247 (0-15), 248(3-02),

249 (1-12), 340/250 (2-02) measuring 7 bighas 11 biswas in all in village

Saidulajab, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. It is claimed by the petitioner that the physical possession of the

subject land has not been taken by the land acquiring agency. However,

the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the possession was

taken on 17.07.1987. At best it can be stated that the question of physical

possession is disputed. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, it is

the case of the petitioner that the same has not been paid to them whereas

it is the case of the respondents that the said compensation was deposited

in court pursuant to an order passed by a Vacation Judge of this court in

C.M.(Main) 1392/2013 passed on 30.12.2013 By virtue of that order,

the said C.M.(Main) No.1392/2013, amongst others, was disposed of by

recording that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land

holders the cheque tendered in each petition would be treated as tendered

to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi as of that date

i.e. 30.12.2013. According to the respondents, this amounts to payment

of compensation. However, this issue has already been settled by a

decision of this court in Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India &

Ors. WPC 1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014 wherein this court held that

unless and until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested,

mere deposit of the compensation in court would not be sufficient. The

compensation cannot be regarded as having been paid merely on the

deposit of the same in court unless and until it has first been offered to the

person interested and he has refused to accept the same. In the present

case, it is an admitted position that the compensation amount was

tendered in this court in the said C.M (Main) 1392/2013 without first

being offered to the petitioner herein. Therefore the same, following the

decision in Gyanender Singh (supra), cannot be regarded as

compensation having been paid to the petitioner.

3. In these circumstances, while the question of physical possession is

disputed, it is clear that compensation has not been paid to the petitioner.

The award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of

the 2013 Act. All the ingredients necessary for the applicability 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

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others:

WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(v) Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors:

W.P.(C) 1393/2014.

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

DECEMBER 07, 2015 'sn'