Manjeet Singh & Ors. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 923 Del

$~21
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 02.02.2015

+       W.P.(C) 7144/2014 & CM 16769/2014
MANJEET SINGH & ORS.                                         .... Petitioners
                                       versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                             ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for
                    respondent Nos1 & 2.
                    Mr Ajay Verma with Mr Amit Mehra, Advocate 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 by Mr Verma on behalf of DDA

is taken on record. Insofar as the affidavit which was to be filed by the

Land Acquisition Collector is concerned, the same is possibly lying in

objection but the same may be taken on record. The learned counsel for

the petitioner has already filed the rejoinder affidavit to the counter

affidavit on behalf of the DDA. With regard to the counter affidavit on

behalf of the LAC, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to

file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as, according to him, the necessary

averments are contained in the writ petition.

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.157/86-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in respect of

the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos.72/14/1 & 72/17 measuring

7 Bighas and 16 Biswas in all in village Palam shall be deemed to have

lapsed.

3. In this case, the respondents claimed that physical possession of the

subject land was taken as far back on 14.10.1986. It is also contended

that after the possession was taken, the petitioners tried to encroach upon

the said land by putting up structures which was also demolished as per

the learned counsel for the DDA and, therefore, it is contended on behalf

of the respondents that the physical possession of the subject land is with

the respondents and not with the petitioners. The petitioners contend that

they retain the physical possession of the same. Without going into the

question of physical possession, it is an admitted position that the

compensation amount has not been paid to the petitioners although it has

been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the

compensation amount was placed in a revolving deposit with the treasury

in 04.03.1987.

4. In these circumstances, the respondents seek to place reliance on

the newly added second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act which

has been introduced by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

(Amendment) Ordinance, 2014. But, that would be of no avail because

of the recent decisions 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 and Karnail Kaur & Ors. vs State of Punjab

& Ors, Civil Appeal No.7424/2013, which have held that the amendment

introduced by virtue of the said Ordinance would be prospective in

nature. In other words, the second Proviso would take effect from

31.12.2014 and not from 01.01.2014, the date on which the 2013 Act

came into effect. It is on that date (01.01.2014) that the acquisition lapsed

and vested rights were created in the petitioners. As per the said decision

of the Supreme Court, what has already vested in the petitioners could not

be taken away by the addition of the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of

the 2013 Act because the said amendment was prospective in nature and

was not retrospective. Thus, the position is that physical possession of

the subject land is disputed and compensation has not been paid to the

petitioners. The Award was made more than five years prior to the

coming into effect of the 2013 Act and, therefore, the ingredients

necessary for invoking the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

stand satisfied in the light of the various following decisions rendered by

the Supreme Court:

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 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.

7. 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