Bishan Singh & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 1168 Del

$~24
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 09.02.2015

+       WP(C) No. 8743/2014 and CM 20088/2014

BISHAN SINGH & ORS.                                          .... Petitioners

                             versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Rajesh Yadav with Mr Dhanajay Mehlawat, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Mr Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr
                    Siddharth Panda, Advocates for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
                    Mr Dhanesh Relan with Mr Arush Bhandari, Advocates for
                    respondent No.3/DDA.
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 on behalf of respondent Nos.1 &

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

to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as he would be relying on the

averments already made 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. 50/80-81 dated 18.07.1980 was made, inter alia, in respect of

the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No. 92 Min measuring 1 bigha

and 7 biswas in all in village Haiderpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. While the petitioners claim that the possession in respect of the

subject land has not been taken by the land acquiring agency and that the

petitioners retain the physical possession thereof, it has been contended

by the learned counsel for the respondents that out of a total area of four

bighas in Khasra No.92, possession of 2 bighas 18 biswas was taken on

19.07.1980 and possession of the balance land could not be taken.

4. Insofar as the question of compensation is concerned, the stand of

the petitioners is that they had not received any compensation nor has the

compensation amount been offered to them. On the other hand, the

respondents contend that the records are not available and, therefore, they

are not in a position to either confirm or contradict the statement of the

petitioners that the compensation has not been paid to them. It is stated in

the counter affidavit in paragraph 11 that efforts are still being made to

trace the record with regard to the compensation. Be that as it may, the

position as it obtains today is that the compensation has not been paid to

the petitioners.

5. Insofar as the question of physical possession is concerned, it is

partly admitted that the same has not been taken in respect of a portion of

the land whereas in respect of the balance portion, there is a dispute with

regard to the issue of physical possession. The Award was made more

than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and although

the issue of physical possession (partly) is disputed, compensation has

clearly not been paid to the petitioners. That being the case, the

provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act clearly apply in the light of

the various decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court in:

(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.

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



FEBRUARY 09, 2015                        SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st