Satnam Arora vs Union Of India & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 985 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 03.02.2015

+       W.P.(C) 5283/2014 & CM 10510/2014

SATNAM ARORA                                                     ... Petitioner


                                        versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                             ... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner                     : Mr N.P. Sahni with Mr Ruchesh Sinha
For the Respondent No. 1               : Mr Manish Mohan with Ms Hina Shaheen and
                                         Ms Sidhi Arora
For the Respondent Nos 2,4 &5          : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent No. 3               : Mr Dhanesh Relan with Mr Arush Bhandari

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 is seeking 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 the Award

No. 10/87-88 dated 14.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioner's land comprised in khasra Nos. 162(0-15), 163/1 min (1-12),

163/2(3-00), 166 min (3-14), 167 min (0-07), 401 min (0-8), 405/1(0-19)

and 404/2 min (0-10) measuring 11 bighas 3 biswas in village

Shayoorpur, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. It is an admitted position that the physical possession of the subject

land has not been taken by the land acquiring agency. However, insofar

as the compensation is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the

same has not been paid to them, whereas it is the case of the respondents

that the said compensation was deposited in court pursuant to an order

passed by a Vacation Judge of this court in C.M.(Main) 1407/2013

passed on 30.12.2013. By virtue of that order, the said C.M.(Main),

amongst others, was disposed of by recording that without prejudice to

the rights and contentions of the land holders, the cheque tendered in each

petition would be treated as tendered to the court of the learned

Additional District Judge, Delhi as of that date i.e. 30.12.2013.

According to the respondents this amounts to payment of compensation.

However, this issue has already been settled by a decision of this court in

Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors: WPC 1393/2014

decided on 23.09.2014, wherein this court held that unless and until the

compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere deposit of the

compensation in court would not be sufficient. The compensation cannot

be regarded as having been paid merely on the deposit of the same in

court unless and until it has first been offered to the person interested and

he has refused to accept the same. In the present case, it is an admitted

position that the compensation amount was tendered in this court in the

said C.M (Main) 1407/2013 without first being offered to the petitioner

herein. Therefore the same, following the decision in Gyanender Singh

(supra), cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the

petitioner.

3. In these circumstances, it is clear that neither physical possession

of the subject land has been taken by the land acquiring agency nor has

any compensation been paid to the petitioner. The award was made more

than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the

ingredients necessary for the applicability of section 24(2) of the 2013

Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this court in the following

decisions, stand satisfied:-

(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v.

Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

         (ii)    Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:
                 (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v.

State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others:

WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(v) Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors:

W.P.(C) 1393/2014.

4. 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 lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

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

no order as to costs.

                                           BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J


FEBRUARY 03, 2015                           SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR