Sushil Bansal vs Union Of India & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 4769 Del

$~24
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 07.07.2015

+       W.P.(C) 2487/2015 & CM 4453/2015
SUSHIL BANSAL                                                    .... Petitioner
                                       versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                             ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner                     : Mr Sumit Bansal, Mr Ateev Mathur and
                                         Ms Richa Oberoi
For the Respondent /L&B                : Mr Siddharth Panda with Mr Priyabrat Sahu
For the Respondent No. 1               : Mr Rajesh Kumar Das with Mr Anuj Aggarwal
For the Respondent/DDA                 : 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. The counter-affidavit handed over by Mr Siddharth Panda on

behalf of the respondent No. 2 is taken on record. The learned counsel

for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder/ affidavit inasmuch

as the averments made in the writ petition would be relied upon.

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.06/2005-

06 dated 12.07.2005 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's

land comprised in Khasra No. 51/21/2 min measuring 1 bigha in all in

Village Pehladpur Bangar, Delhi shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. 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; and

(iv) Surender Singh v. 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


JULY 07, 2015                            SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR