T.R. Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 4938 Del

$~48

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Judgment delivered on: 13.07.2015

W.P.(C) 2514/2015 & CM 4481/2015

T.R. GUPTA                                                           ..... Petitioner

                             versus


UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                                              ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner                     : Ms Richa Oberao
For the Respondent UOI                 : Mr Sanjeev Narula with Mr Ajay Kalra and
                                         Mr Anuj Aggarwal.
For the Respondent L&B                 : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent DDA                 : Mr Jogendra


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 on behalf of

respondent no.2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that no rejoinder affidavit would be necessary inasmuch as all the

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.6/2005-06 dated 12.07.2005 was

made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos.

47/25 measuring 1 bigha 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. We may point out that it was also contended by the learned counsel

for the respondents that there was stay granted by the Supreme Court, which

was finally vacated on 11.02.2015. In view of this the learned counsel for

the respondents sought to place reliance on the Right to Fair Compensation

and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

(Amendment) Ordinance, 2015. However, the same would not be available

to them in view of the fact that the vested rights cannot be taken away by

virtue of the said Ordinance. The rights which had vested in the petitioner

on 01.01.2014, on which date the 2013 Act came into operation, could not

be taken away by the said Ordinance which was prospective in nature.

5. 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.

6. 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 13, 2015 kb