Raj Bir Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 4976 Del

$~53
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 14.07.2015

+       W.P.(C) 2679/2015 & CM 4785/2015
RAJ BIR SINGH & ORS                                                .... Petitioners
                                       versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                               ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner                     : Mr Rajesh Gupta
For the Respondent L&B/LAC             : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA                 : Mr Arun Birbal

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5 handed

over by Mr Yeeshu is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and relies on the

averments already made in the writ petition.

2. The petitioners seek 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. 16/2005-06 dated 14.09.2005 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 23//15 (4-16) and

23//16 (4-16) measuring 9 bighas 12 biswas in all in village Mubrak Pur

Dabas, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. The petitioners claim that physical possession of the entire land is

with them. However, the respondents claim that possession of 1 bigha

out of khasra nos. 23//16 has been taken by them. In respect of the

balance land it is admitted that possession could not be taken. Insofar as

the 1 bigha of land, which the respondents claim to have taken possession

of, is concerned, the petitioners dispute this fact. As regards the issue of

compensation, it the case of the petitioners that compensation has neither

been offered nor paid to the petitioners. This fact is admitted by the

respondents.

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. 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.

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

no order as to costs.

                                          BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



JULY 14, 2015                             SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
kb