Arun Sahni & Anr vs Union Of India And Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 9277 Del

$~82

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 14.12.2015


+       WP(C) No. 6859/2015 & CM 12555/2015

ARUN SAHNI & ANR                                                       .... Petitioners
                                       versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                                                ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners                             : Mr Achal Gupta
For the Respondent L&B/LAC                      : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent DDA                          : Mr Pawan Mathur


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

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Panda on behalf of

respondent nos. 2 & 3 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and reiterates the

contents of the writ petition.

2. 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. 15/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of

the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 738/1/1 (0-14), 738/1/2 (0-

14), 738/2/1 (1-16), 738/2/2 (1-8) and 787/1 (0-4) measuring 4 bighas

and 16 biswas in all in village Chattarpur, Delhi, shall be deemed to have

lapsed.

3. Insofar as khasra no. 738 and its sub divisions are concerned, it is

admitted by the respondents that the physical possession of the same has

not been taken. As regards khasra no. 787, the stand of the respondents is

that physical possession of the said land was taken on 01.08.2013. This is

disputed by the petitioners, who claim to be in actual physical possession

of the entire subject land.

4. In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, the same

has not been paid to the petitioners but according to the respondents, the

same has been deposited in the treasury.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further

submitted that the writ petition ought to be thrown out on the ground that

it has been filed on behalf of subsequent purchasers. The learned counsel

submitted that the petitioners had purchased the land after the issuance of

the notifications under section 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act. He also

submitted that it is settled law that a subsequent purchaser has no right to

challenge the acquisition proceeding and has only a limited right to

receive compensation. He placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision

in the case of KN Aswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr. LRs.& Ors. Vs. State of

Karnataka & Ors. AIR 2014 SC 279. According to the learned counsel,

the Supreme Court held that a person who purchases land subsequent to

the issuance of a notification for acquisition is not competent to challenge

the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever. He

contended that the sale deed executed in favour of the subsequent

purchaser does not confer upon him any title and at the most he could

claim compensation on the basis of the vendors title. A reference was

also made to the Supreme Court decision: Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant

Governor of Delhi and Ors.: (2008) 9 SCC 177.

6. While it is true that, in the context of 1894 Act, the Supreme Court

has held that a subsequent purchaser would not have a right to challenge

the acquisition and would only have a right to compensation, we agree

with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present petition as it

now stands is not a challenge to the acquisition proceedings but a petition

seeking declaration of rights which had accrued to the petitioners by

virtue of the deeming provision of section 24(2) of 2013 Act. Once the

acquisition has lapsed because of the triggering of the deeming provision

of section 24(2) of 2013 Act, the benefit of the same cannot be denied to

the petitioners on the ground that they are subsequent purchasers.

7. Without going into the controversy with regard to the physical

possession in so far as the Khasra No.787 is concerned, 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 petitioners, 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be

no order as to costs.

                                        BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J


DECEMBER 14, 2015                        SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
kb