Ajay Singal vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 2061 Del

$~26
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 10.03.2015

+       WP(C) No. 7897/2014


AJAY SINGAL                                               .... Petitioner

                                       versus


LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS.                            ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner      : Ms Esha Mazumdar, Mr Setu Niket and
                          Mr Saurabh Mishra
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for L&B/LAC
                         Mr Manu Mridul and Ms Ragini for DDA


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

                                   JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 1/98-99 was made on 24.04.1998. He also states

that compensation has not yet been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the

requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have been fulfilled and the

petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the subject acquisition under the

1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is situated in Village

Sahibabad Daulatpur in Khasra Nos. 43/3/1 Min (0-10) and 43/8/2 (1-5)

measuring 1 bigha and 15 biswas in all.

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

been take on 13.01.1997 and 07.12.1999, compensation has not been paid

to the petitioner. 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.

3. 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