Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 23 March, 2015
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 23.03.2015
+ WP(C) No.40/2015 and CM 68/2015
ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. .... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Vishal Maan, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Mr Sunil Kumar Jha,
Advocates for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for respondent No.3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 handed
over by Mr Pathak is taken on record. The learned counsel for the
petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch
according to him the necessary averments are contained in the writ
petition.
2. 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. 40/1980-81 dated 14.07.1980 and Award No.50/80-81 dated
18.07.1980 were made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land
comprised in Khasra Nos.286 min (0-07), 251(10-05), 252/2(0-03),
292(1-16), 293(1-05), 294(0-05), 900/289(25-01) measuring 39 bighas
and 2 biswas in all in village Haiderpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.
3. With regard to possession, there is a clear dispute inasmuch as
according to the respondents, part possession has been taken of the said
land whereas according to the petitioners, the possession has not been
taken.
4. Insofar as the question of compensation is concerned, the stand of
the petitioners is that they had not received any compensation nor has the
compensation amount been offered to them. On the other hand, the
respondents contend that the records are not available and, therefore, they
are not in a position to either confirm or contradict the statement of the
petitioners that the compensation has not been paid to them. The position
as it obtains today is that the compensation has not been paid to the
petitioners.
5. Insofar as the question of physical possession is concerned, it is
partly admitted that the same has not been taken in respect of a portion of
the land whereas in respect of the balance portion, there is a dispute with
regard to the issue of physical possession. The Award was made more
than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and although
the issue of physical possession (partly) is disputed, compensation has
clearly not been paid to the petitioners. That being the case, the
provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act clearly apply in the light of
the various decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court in:
(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.
6. 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.
7. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall
be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
MARCH 23, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
