Abhishek Jain vs Union Of India And Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 1177 Del

$~18
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 09.02.2015

+       WP(C) No. 8593/2014 and CM 19828/2014

ABHISHEK JAIN                                                 .... Petitioner

                             versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                                     ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Raghuvinder Varma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC for UOI/Respondent
                      No.1 with Mr Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
                      Mr Siddharth Panda for the Respondent/L&B and LAC.
                      Mr Arun Birbal with Mr L.R. Bansal and Mr Sanjay Singh,
                      for DDA.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

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 Award No.1724

dated 23.06.1964 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner‟s land

comprised in Khasra Nos. 2778/738 measuring 1 bigha and 15 biswas in

all in Village Basai Darapur, Delhi shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the physical

possession of the subject land has not been taken by the land acquiring

agencies and that the petitioner continues to be in physical possession.

This fact is, however, disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent,

who states that the possession was taken over on 20.08.1964.

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

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

same has been deposited in the treasury. Therefore, they seek to invoke

the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which was

introduced by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment)

Ordinance, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Ordinance").

4. So far as the applicability of the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of

the 2013 Act is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon by the

respondents inasmuch as the said Ordinance has been held to be

prospective in nature and does not take away vested rights. This has so

been held by the Supreme Court in recent decision in M/s Radiance

Fincap (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on

12.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 4283/2011 wherein the Supreme Court

held as under:-

"The right conferred to the land holders/owners of the acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is the statutory right and, therefore, the said right cannot be taken away by an Ordinance by inserting proviso to the abovesaid sub-section without giving retrospective effect to the same."

5. The same has been reinforced by the Supreme Court in Karnail

Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7424/2013

decided on 22.01.2015.

6. From the above decisions, it is evident that the said Ordinance is

prospective in nature and the rights created in favour of the petitioner as

on 01.01.2014 by virtue of the 2013 Act are undisturbed by the second

Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which has been introduced by

the said Ordinance.

7. Without going into the controversy with regard to the 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 to the petitioner, 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 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.

10. 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