Delhi High Court
Shri Balwan Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 May, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25.05.2015
+ W.P.(C) 7799/2014 & CM 18323/2014
SHRI BALWAN SINGH & ORS .... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr N.S. Vasisht with Mr M.P. Bhargava, Mr Vishal
Singh and Ms Jyoti Kataria.
For the Respondent UOI : Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj with Ms Anubha Bhardwaj.
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Dhanesh Relan with Mr Arush Bhandari.
For the Respondent L&B/LAC:Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. 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. 90/1980-81 dated 22.12.1980 was made, inter alia, in respect
of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 43 (10-19), 53 (4-09),
55 (3-00), 64 (10-16), 373/70 (6-15), 390/81 (3-00), 375/83 (12-11) and
405/98 (13-15) measuring 65 bighas 5 biswas in all in village Masoodpur,
New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land
was taken on 29.12.1980, the petitioners dispute this and maintain 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.
3. But, the learned counsel for the respondents contend that the
execution court had attached a sum of Rs.48,52,875 in August 2014 in the
execution petition allegedly pursued by the petitioners herein. It was
contended on behalf of the respondents that in such eventuality the
petitioners cannot be permitted to have the benefit of section 24(2) of the
2013 Act. The fact remains that as on 01.01.2014, the compensation had
not been paid to the petitioners. Even the attachment order was passed
subsequently in August 2014. The critical date in the present case is
01.01.2014. As on that date the compensation had not been paid and
therefore the present case would be regarded as one where the
compensation has not been paid within the meaning of section 24(2) of
the 2013 Act.
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 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.
6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
MAY 25, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
kb
