Ved Prakash And Ors vs Land Acquisition Collector And ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 2060 Del

$~14
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 10.03.2015

+       WP(C) No. 7125/2014 and CM No. 16685/2014


VED PRAKASH AND ORS                                          .... Petitioners
                                       versus

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR                           ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners           : Mr Dhruv Madan and Ms Aseem Nayyar
For the Respondent No.1       : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent No. 2      : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal

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

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. Mr Yeeshu Jain, the learned counsel, has handed over the counter

affidavit on behalf of Land Acquisition Collector. 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 v. Lt.

Governor of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2011.

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. 36/80-81 was made on 19.06.1980. 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 Lado

Sarai in Khasra Nos. 399, 400, 401, 402, 406, 407, 408, 409, 412, 416,

419, 420 and 421 measuring 80 bighas and 10 biswas in all (1/2 share).

3. Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has

been take on 24.06.1980, 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 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

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MARCH 10, 2015 SU