Gurnam Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 5262 Del

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment reserved on: 18th May, 2015
                                       Judgment delivered on: 22nd July, 2015

+        WP(C) No. 5565/2014 and CM Nos. 13794/2014 & 15228/2014


GURNAM SINGH AND ORS.                                          .... Petitioners
                                       versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                         .... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners           : Mr Rakesh Tiku, Sr Adv with Mr Ashim Vacher
For the Respondent No.1       : Mr Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 2-4    : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates
For the Respondent No.5        : Mr Pawan Mathur, Advocate

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

                                  JUDGEMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

1. 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.

15/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners'

land comprised in Khasra Nos. 737/1, 737/2,738/2/2, 788/1 and 788/2 and

790/12/3 (0-14) measuring 7 bighas and 16 biswas in all in village

Chhattarpur, Tehsil Mehraulli shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said

land was taken on 01.08.2013. This is disputed by the petitioners, who claim

to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.

3. In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, the same

has not been paid to the petitioners but according to the respondents, the

same has been deposited in the treasury. Therefore, they seek to invoke the

second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which was introduced by

virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014

(hereinafter referred to as "the said Ordinance").

5. In so far as the applicability of the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of

the 2013 Act is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon by the

respondents inasmuch as the said Ordinance has been held to be prospective

in nature and does not take away vested rights. This has so been held by the

Supreme Court in recent decision in M/s Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. & Ors.

Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No.

4283/2011 wherein the Supreme Court held as under:-

"The right conferred to the land holders/owners of the acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is the statutory right and, therefore, the said right cannot be taken away by an Ordinance by inserting proviso to the above said sub-section without giving retrospective effect to the same."

6. The same has been reinforced by the Supreme Court in Karnail Kaur

& Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7424/2013 decided on

22.01.2015.

7. From the above decisions, it is evident that the said Ordinance is

prospective in nature and the rights created in favour of the petitioners as on

01.01.2014 by virtue of the 2013 Act are undisturbed by the second Proviso

to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which has been introduced by the said

Ordinance.

8. Without going into the controversy with regard to the 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 to the petitioners, but has only been deposited in the treasury,

which does not amount to payment of compensation as interpreted by the

Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand

Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.

9. All 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) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(3) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and (4) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:

WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.

10. 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.

11. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no

order as to costs.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

July 22 , 2015 sv