Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Man Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 1173 Del

Citation : 2015 Latest Caselaw 1173 Del
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2015

Delhi High Court
Man Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 February, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~23
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 09.02.2015

+       W.P.(C) 8730/2014 & CM 20065/2014

MAN SINGH & ORS                                                 .... Petitioners

                                       versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                            ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr Ateev Mathur and Ms Jagriti Ahuja
For the Respondent No. 1     : Mr Niraj Kumar for UOI
For the Respondent No. 2     : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for the
                               Respondent/L&B and LAC
For the Respondent No. 3     : Mr Dhanesh Relan and Mr Arush Bhandari for DDA

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

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. Mr Yeeshu Jain has handed over the counter affidavit on behalf of

respondent No. 2. The same is taken on record. The learned counsel for

the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit, inasmuch as,

according to him, all the necessary averments are contained in the writ

petition itself.

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. 23/87-88 dated 17.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of

the 4/5th share of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 732/176

(1-10), 733/176 (1-00), 1012/714/326 (2-00), 322 (1-01), 349 (4-08), 558

Min (1-18), 588 (1-17) and full share in Khasra Nos. 425 (0-14), 350 (2-

09) and 911/577 (1-01) in village Maidan Garhi shall be deemed to have

lapsed. The total extent of the land in all the above Khasra numbers is 15

bighas, 3 biswas and 12 biswansis. The total land in the first set of

khasras is 13 bighas and 14 biswas. The 4/5 th share of this comes to 10

bighas and 19 biswas. The total extent of the land in the second set of

land is 4 bighas and 4 biswas. Therefore the total land of the petitioners

is 15 bighas, 3 biswas and 12 biswansis.

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

was taken on 16.07.1987, the petitioners dispute this and maintain 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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
SU





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter