Siddarth Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 910 Del

$~26
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 02.02.2015

+       W.P.(C) 8640/2014 & CM 19908/2014
SIDDARTH GUPTA                                                .... Petitioner
                                       versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                         ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr N.S. Vasishth, Advocate.
For the Respondents :Mr R.V. Sinha with Mr A.S. Singh, Advocates for respondent
                    Nos.1 & 2.
                    Mr Rajat Agnihotri, Advocate for Mr Manu Mridul, Advocate
                    for respondent No.3.
                    Mr Siddharth Panda, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 & 5.
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 the

respondent No. 5 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder inasmuch as all the

necessary averments are contained 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.14/87-88 dated 19.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of

the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No. 614 measuring 10 biswas in

all in village Satbari, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

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

was taken on 14.07.1987, 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.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, places reliance

on the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance,

2014, which came into effect on 31.12.2014 whereby the second Proviso

has been added to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. The said

plea, however, is no longer available to the respondents in view of the

decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Radiance Fincap (P) &

Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.01.2015 in Civil Appeal

No.4283/2011 wherein the Supreme Court has 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."

The same view has also been reiterated in Karnail Kaur & Ors v. State of

Punjab & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 7424/2013 decided by the Supreme

Court on 22.01.2015.

5. It is evident from the above that the Ordinance is prospective and

rights created in favour of the petitioner as on 01.01.2014 are

undisturbed by the virtue of the said Ordinance.

6. 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.

7. 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.

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

no order as to costs.

                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



FEBRUARY 02, 2015                         SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st