Delhi High Court
Manish Sethi & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 25 May, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25.05.2015
+ WP(C) No.6060/2014 & CM No.14759/2014
MANISH SETHI & ANR. .... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Ms Damini Chawla with Mr Mohit Chaudhary,
Advocates.
For the Respondent No. :Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Adocates
for respondent Nos.3 & 4.
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. 2/2004-05 dated 31.05.2005 was made, inter alia, in respect
of the petitioners‟ land comprised in Khasra Nos. 2 Min (1-02), 8(1-12),
9(4-16), 12(4-16), 13(1-14), 18(1-10) and 19/1(1-04) measuring 18
bighas and 14 biswas in all in village Johripur, shall be deemed to have
lapsed.
2. The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said
land was taken on 28.03.2007. This is disputed by the petitioners, who
claim to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.
3. In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, the same
has not been paid to the petitioners but, according to the respondents, the
same has been deposited in the treasury. Therefore, they seek to invoke
the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which was
introduced by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment)
Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Ordinance").
4. So far as the applicability of the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of
the 2013 Act is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon by the
respondents inasmuch as the Ordinance of 2014 has been held to be
prospective in nature and does not take away vested rights. This has so
been held by the Supreme Court in recent decision in M/s Radiance
Fincap (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on
12.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 4283/2011 wherein the Supreme Court
held as under:-
"The right conferred to the land holders/owners of the
acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is the
statutory right and, therefore, the said right cannot be
taken away by an Ordinance by inserting proviso to the
abovesaid sub-section without giving retrospective effect
to the same."
5. The same has been reinforced by the Supreme Court in Karnail
Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7424/2013
decided on 22.01.2015.
6. From the above decisions, it is evident that the said Ordinance is
prospective in nature and the rights created in favour of the petitioners as
on 01.01.2014 by virtue of the 2013 Act are undisturbed by the second
Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which has been introduced by
the said Ordinance. The same would apply in respect of the said
Ordinance of 2015.
7. Without going into the controversy with regard to the 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 to the petitioners, but has only been deposited in
the treasury, which does not amount to payment of compensation as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and
Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.
8. All 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) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6
SCC 564;
(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013
decided on 10.09.2014;
(3) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C)
2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(4) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:
WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for respondents that the
compensation could not be paid inasmuch as the challenge to the
acquisition was pending before the Supreme Court [SLP (C)
No.10818/2009] and a stay order has been granted by the Supreme Court
on 22.04.2009.
10. This aspect of the matter has also been considered and decided
against the respondents of this Court in several decisions including Jagjit
Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. in WP(C) 2806/2004 decided
on 27.05.2014 and J.L. Sarna vs. UOI & Ors. in WP(C) 4965/2000
decided on 10.03.2015.
11. We may also point out that the appeal arising out of Jagjit Singh &
Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. has been dismissed by the Supreme Court
in Civil Appeal No.2592/2015 (arising out of SLP(C) No.33569/2014).
12. 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.\
13. 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, 25, 2015
st
