Rakesh Bansal vs Union Of India & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 9297 Del

$~54
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 14.12.2015

+       W.P.(C) 177/2015 and CM No. 289/2015
RAKESH BANSAL                                                      .... Petitioner
                                       versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                               ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner                     : Mr Raghuvinder Varma
For the Respondent No.1                : Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj
For the Respondent No.2                : Ms Mrinalini Sen Gupta
For the Respondents/L&B/LAC            : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi

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. 102A/72-73 dated 23.03.1977 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No. 111/2 measuring 4

bighas 4 biswas to the extent of 900 sq. yards in all in village Pipalthala

shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land

was taken on 08.08.1998, the petitioner disputes this and maintains 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. The said 900 sq. yards of land, however, has not been identified out

of the above khasra number.

3. 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 a subsequent purchaser. The learned

counsel submitted that the petitioner 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.

4. 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 pettioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner on the ground that he is a subsequent purchaser.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 14, 2015 SU