M/S Santosh Infratech Private ... vs Union Of India And Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 700 Del

$~40(III)
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 27.01.2015

+       WP(C) No. 5768/2014 and CM 14214/2014
M/S SANTOSH INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED                        .... Petitioner
                                       versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                                    ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Ashim Vachher, Mr Pawash Piyush and Mr Abhimanyu
                      Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr Amit Mahajan CGSC for UOI/Respondent No.1.
                      Mr Siddharth Panda for the Respondent/L&B and LAC.
                      Mr Pawan Mathur with Mr. Himanshu Gupta for 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 Panda/respondent No.2 is

taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to

file any rejoinder affidavit and reiterates the contents of 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 No. 871 (4-16), 952 min (1-08)

and 952/3 (0-19) measuring 27 bighas and 6 biswas in all in village

Satbari shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. In so far as Khasra No. 871 is concerned, it is admitted by the

respondents that the physical possession of the same could not be taken.

As regards the other two Khasra Nos., the stand of the respondents is that

physical possession of the said land was taken on 30/09/1987. This is

disputed by the petitioner, who claims to be in actual physical possession

of the entire subject land.

4. 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").

5. 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."

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Without going into the controversy with regard to the physical

possession in so far as the two Khasra Nos. are concerned, 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

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

no order as to costs.

                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J


JANUARY 27, 2015                          SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
sk