M/S Mass Estate (P) Ltd. vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 3962 Del

$~15

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 18.05.2015

W.P.(C) 2456/2014 & CM Nos.5117/2014 & 20434/2014

M/S MASS ESTATE (P) LTD.                                          ..... Petitioner



                             versus



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

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  :        Ms Esha Mazumdar with Mr Setu Niket, Advocates
For the Respondents :        Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi,
                             Advocates for respondent Nos.1 & 3.
                             Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Mr Hem Kumar, Advocates for
                             respondent Nos.2/DDA.

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

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner is seeking 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. The petitioner,

consequently, seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894

Act') and in respect of which Award No.29/2002-03 dated 01.11.2002 was

made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos.

15/26(0-03), 26/4/1 (0-8), 26/4/2 (1-17), 15/26 (0-3), 15/24/2 (1-0)

measuring 3 Bighas 11 Biswas in Village Shahbad Daulatpur shall be

deemed to have lapsed.

2. In the petition, it has been claimed that the physical possession of the

subject land has not been taken by the land acquiring agency nor has any

compensation been paid to the petitioner. This fact is not specifically refuted

by the Land Acquisition Collector in the counter affidavit filed by him. The

counter affidavit filed on behalf of DDA also indicates that the possession of

the land could not be taken because the area was built up. Insofar as the

compensation is concerned, there is also no specific denial of the allegations

on the part of the petitioner that the compensation has not been paid in

respect of the said land. Consequently, it will have to be considered as a

case where possession of the subject land has not been taken and

compensation has also not been paid in respect thereof. The award was

made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All

the ingredients of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the

Supreme Court and this Court in the following decisions stand satisfied:-

(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v.

Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:

(2014) 6 SCC 564;

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(iv) Surinder Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.:

W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court.

3. 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

lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

4. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no

order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MAY 18, 2015 st