Delhi High Court
Krishan Kant Goyal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 6 July, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~37
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 06.07.2015
W.P.(C) 2204/2015 & CM 3959/2015
KRISHAN KANT GOYAL ..... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Rajiv Kumar Ghawana
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Sidharth Panda
For the Respondent DDA : Ms Pallavi Shali
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The learned counsel for the DDA submits that she has filed the
counter affidavit today itself. A copy of the same was handed over to us.
We have seen the same. The counter affidavit which was filed by her be
taken on record by the Registry. Insofar as the respondent nos. 1 & 2 are
concerned Mr Panda has handed over the counter affidavit on their behalf
which is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
he shall not be filing any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as all the necessary
averments are contained in the writ petition.
2. 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 Award No.50/80-81 dated 18.07.1980 was
made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No.
71 measuring 240 square yards in village Haiderpur, New Delhi, shall be
deemed to have lapsed. We may point out that khasra no. 71 comprised of 1
bigha 9 biswas. Insofar as 1 bigha is concerned, possession thereof was
taken by the land acquiring agency and handed over to DDA which is
maintaining it as a 'green cover area'. The possession was taken on
19.07.1980. Insofar as the remaining 9 biswas of land are concerned it is an
admitted position that possession thereof was not taken 'due to built-up'.
The petitioner states that the present petition pertains to 240 square yards out
of that 9 biswas of land, possession in respect of which was not taken. It
may also be pointed out that compensation in respect of 1 bigha of land of
which possession was taken was said to have been deposited by the
respondents under sections 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 far back
in 29.08.1980. However, insofar as the balance 9 biswas of land are
concerned, no compensation has admittedly been paid for it.
3. Therefore, it is an admitted position that neither physical possession of
the subject lands 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 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 decided on 10.09.2014;
(iv) Surinder Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.:
W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this
Court.
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
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JULY 06, 2015
kb
