Rattan Singh vs Union Of India And Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 5375 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 28.07.2015
+      W.P.(C) 9323/2014 & CM 21116/2014

RATTAN SINGH & ORS                                                ... Petitioners
                                          versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                            ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners                    : Mr B. S. Mathur with Mr Praveen Sehrawat and
                                         Mr Rajat Mathur
For the Respondent No. 1               : Mr Puneet Agarwal with Mr Dalveer Kaur
For the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5          : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent No.3                : Mr Dhanesh Relan

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 Yeeshu Jain on behalf of the

respondent Nos. 4 & 5 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit to the same inasmuch

as he would be relying on the averments 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.34/1986-87 which was made in 1986, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 955/1 (0-02), 961/2 (1-09) and

962/1 (2-08) measuring 3 bighas 19 biswas in all in village Mahipalpur, New

Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

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

land was taken on 27.03.2001. This is disputed by the petitioners, who claim

to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.

4. 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, 2015 (hereinafter

referred to as "the said Ordinance").

5. 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 Ordinance of 2014 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. v. 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 abovesaid sub- section without giving retrospective effect to the same."

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

& Ors. v. 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 of 2014

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. The same would apply in respect of the said Ordinance of

2015.

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.

                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J


JULY 28, 2015                             SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR