Divij Mehra vs Union Of India And Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 2477 Del

$~24
*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 23.03.2015

+        W.P.(C) 7/2015
DIVIJ MEHRA                                                  .... Petitioner
                                       versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                                    ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr Nitin Mishra with Mr Gaurav Kumar.
For the Respondent No.2      : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent No.3      : Mr Pawan Mathur with Mr Himanshu Gupta.


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 respondent has handed over the counter

affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2. The same is taken on record. The

learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder

affidavit inasmuch as the averments contained in the writ petition would

be relied upon.

2. 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. 14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioner's land comprised in khasra nos. 609/2( (2-05), 611 (2-

13), 612 (4-16), 613 (4-04) measuring 13 bighas and 18 biswas in all in

village Satbari, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land

was taken on 13.09.1987 and 14.07.1987, the petitioner disputes this and

maintains that physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar

as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it

has not been paid.

4. Without going into the controversy of 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. 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) 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; and

(5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:

WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.

5. 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.

6. 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
kb