Delhi High Court
Om Prakash vs Union Of India & Ors. on 10 March, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10.03.2015
+ W.P.(C) 7281/2014 & CM 17051/2014
OM PRAKASH .... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Sumit Bansal, Mr Ateev Mathur and
Ms Richa Oberoi
For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr Vivek Goyal
For the Respondent Nos. 2&3 : Mr Siddharth Panda and Mr Yeeshu Jain
For the Respondent No.4 : Mr Pawan Mathur
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks 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 petitioner‟s land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1574 Min (2-08), 1578
Min (1-15), 1584/1-2 (4-16), 1585/1-3 (4-16), 1586 (4-16), 1593/1 (0-10),
1593/2 (0-3), 1595 (4-16) measuring 24 bighas in all in village Chattarpur
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 petitioner, who
claims to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.
3. It is stated by the respondents that insofar as the question of
compensation is concerned, part of the same has been deposited pursuant
to an order passed by the Vacation Judge of this court in CM Main No.
1411/2013 passed on 30.12.2013. Furthermore, part of the amount has
been deposited in the Government Treasury. We have already held in
several decisions that such deposit would not amount to the payment of
compensation inasmuch as the same had not been offered or tendered to
the land owners. The respondents, however, 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").
4. 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
abovesaid sub-section without giving retrospective effect
to the same."
5. 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.
6. From the above decisions, it is evident that the said Ordinance is
prospective in nature and the rights created in favour of the petitioner 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.
7. 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 petitioner, 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.
8. 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.
9. As a result, the petitioner is 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.
10. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 10, 2015
SU
