Delhi High Court
M/S Usha Die Casting Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 January, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 19.01.2015
+ W.P.(C) 8452/2014
M/S USHA DIE CASTING PVT. LTD .... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Sumeer Sodhi and Mr Arjun Nanda, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for the Respondent/L&B
and LAC.
Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay, Advocate for Union of India.
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 Yeeshu Jain on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the
petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as he
would be relying on the averments 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 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of
the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos.776 Min (4-01) and 782 (4-
16) measuring 8 bighas 17 biswas in all in village Satbari shall be deemed
to have lapsed.
3. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land
was taken on 14.07.1987, 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. The Learned counsel for the respondent sought to rely on the newly
inserted proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act by virtue of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 which came into effect
on 31.12.2014. However, such reliance cannot be placed by the
respondent in view of the fact that the said Ordinance has been held to be
prospective in nature and does not take way the vested rights. This has so
been held by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in M/s Radiance
Fincap (P) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.1.2015 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."
6. It is evident from the above that the Ordinance is prospective and
rights created in favour of the petitioners as on 01.01.2014 are
undisturbed by the virtue of the said Ordinance.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that since
the amount was deposited in the treasury, the proviso would be
applicable. But, as pointed out above, that argument is no longer
available inasmuch as the Ordinance has been construed as prospective
in nature and one which does not take away the rights of the petitioners
as they stood on 01.01.2014 when the acquisition is deemed to have
lapsed.
8. 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.
9. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
JANUARY 19, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SV
