Basti Ram & Ors vs Delhi Development Authority And ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 1852 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 03.03.2015

+       W.P.(C) 5238/2014 & CM 10416/2014

BASTI RAM & ORS                                                  .... Petitioner

                             versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners          : Mr A. K. De with Mr Rajesh Dwivedi
For the Respondent No.1      : Mr Ajay Verma with Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal
For the Respondent No.2      : Mr Jagdeep Sharma
For the Respondent No.3      : Mr Sushil Kumar Pandey
For the Respondent No.4      : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

                                       JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

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. 22/2005-06 dated 02.01.2006 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 82/11 (4-16), 82/20 (4-16),

83/7/2 (2-08) and 83/8/1 (3-12) measuring 15 bighas and 12 biswas in all in

village Karala shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was

taken on 02.02.2007 the petitioners dispute this and maintain that physical

possession has not been taken. However, insofar as the issue of

compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not been

paid.

3. 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.

4. 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.

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

order as to costs.

                                          BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



MARCH 03, 2015                                  VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SR