Delhi High Court
Sushil Kumar Kasana & Anr vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 3 March, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 03.03.2015
+ W.P.(C) 4994/2014 & CM 9980/2014
SUSHIL KUMAR KASANA & ANR .... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Lalit Kumar Rawal with Mr Ram Kumar Ranga and
Mr Vishal Thakur
For the Respondent Nos.1-2 : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent No.3 : Mr Pawan Mathur
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. Mr Siddharth Panda, the learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 has handed over the affidavit on behalf of Land Acquisition
Collector (North-East). The same is taken on record. The learned counsel
for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder/affidavit inasmuch as
all the necessary averments are contained in the writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that this matter is
covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Girish Chhabra vs. Lt.
Governor of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014.
He states that although possession of the subject land has been taken, the
award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
1894 Act') was made more than five years prior to the commencement 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. In this case Award
No.12/1992-93 was made on 19.06.1992. He also states that compensation
has not yet been paid to the petitioners. Therefore, the requirements of
section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have been fulfilled and the petitioners are
entitled to a declaration that the subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has
lapsed. The land in question is situated in Village Sadatpur Gujran in Khasra
No.194 measuring 1 bigha 6 biswas in all.
3. Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has been
taken on 18.03.2013 pursuant to the orders passed in WP(C) 7057/2005,
compensation has not been paid to the petitioners. The Award is also more
than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Consequently,
the decision of this Court in Girish Chhabra (supra) applies on all fours and
the subject acquisition has lapsed.
4. The respondents have also objected on the ground that the petitioners
are subsequent purchasers. They placed reliance on the Supreme Court
decisions in KN Aswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr. LRs.& Ors. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors.: AIR 2014 SC 279 and Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant
Governor of Delhi and Ors.: (2008) 9 SCC 177.
5. There is no doubt that in the context of the 1894 Act the Supreme
Court clearly held that a subsequent purchaser would not have a right to
challenge the acquisition and would only have a right to seek compensation.
But, the position obtaining at present is different. This is a petition which
does not seek to challenge the acquisition proceedings but seeks a
declaration of a right which has enured to the benefit of the petitioners by
virtue of the operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Once the acquisition
is deemed to have lapsed because of the operation of the deeming provision
of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the benefit of the same cannot be denied to
the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are subsequent purchasers.
This is, of course, provided that the conditions precedent for the application
of the deeming provision contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are
satisfied, which they are in the present case.
6. The writ petition is allowed by declaring that the acquisition in respect
of the subject land has lapsed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
MARCH 03, 2015 VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SR
