Ravender & Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 4982 Del

$~28
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 14.07.2015

+       W.P.(C) 6356/2014
RAVENDER & ORS                                               .... Petitioners
                                       versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                  ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners       : Mr Vishal Maan
For the Respondent No. 3  : Ms Manika Tripathy Pandey with Mr Ashutosh
                            Kaushik
For the Respondent /DDA   : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal
For the Respondent/LAC/L&B: Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.

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 respondent No.1 has handed over a

copy of the counter-affidavit which she has filed on 13.07.2015 through

diary No. 329793. That counter-affidavit is not on record. However, we

are taking this copy on record and also directing the Registry to place the

original counter-affidavit on record. Although the affidavit has been filed

on behalf of the respondent No. 1, Government of NCT of Delhi, the

amended memo of parties shows the said respondent as respondent No. 3.

Thus, the affidavit would be taken as that on behalf of the respondent

No. 3 as per the amended memo of parties.

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. 184/1986-87 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 8/2 (3-01), 9/1 (1-16), 13/1/1

(5-01) measuring 9 bighas 18 biswas in all in the revenue estate of village

Dichaon Kalan, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land

was taken on 26.08.2005, the petitioners dispute this and maintain that

physical possession has not been taken. We may also point out that the

requisitioning authority was the Irrigation and Flood Control Department,

Government of NCT of Delhi. As per the affidavit of the said respondent

No.3 (the requisitioning authority), land had been notified for

construction of a supplementary drain along Mugeshpur drain at the old

alignment. But due to stiff resistance from the farmers, the drain could

not be constructed at the old alignment. As a result, alignment was

changed and the final supplementary drain was constructed in alignment

of Nangloi drain by reversing its flow. Thus, it is stated in the said

affidavit that the land notified, which is, inter alia, the subject matter of

the present petition, is no longer required for the supplementary drain as

the supplementary drain has already been constructed at the changed

alignment. The said respondent has also stated that it is not in possession

of the subject land.

4. Insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, the petitioners'

case is that compensation has neither been offered nor paid to the

petitioners. The stand of the respondent is, however, that the Statement-

A with regard to payment of compensation is not traceable and, therefore,

the respondents are not in a position to specifically state as to whether

compensation has been paid to the petitioners or not. In these

circumstances the averments made by the petitioners would have to be

accepted, which means that the compensation has not been paid.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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
SR