Delhi High Court
Gobind Ram Arora & Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors on 25 May, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~47
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 25.05.2015
W.P.(C) 1057/2015 & CM No.1862/2015
GOBIND RAM ARORA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr S.K.Rout
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for R-1 & 3.
Mr Ajay Arora for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 is taken on record.
The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder
affidavit and places reliance on the averments already contained in the writ
petition.
2. By way of this writ petition the petitioners are 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 petitioners,
consequently, seek 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.102/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 was
made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in plot No.
F.22/2, Krishan Nagar measuring 442 square yards in Village Ghondli, shall
be deemed to have lapsed.
3. It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the
subject land has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any
compensation been paid to the petitioners. 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.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents have raised the issue
that the present petitioners are subsequent purchasers. The aspect of
the subsequent purchasers has been considered by this Court in several
decisions including the decision in Ranjana Bhatia v. Government of
NCT of Delhi in W.P.(C) 2210/2010 decided on 28.10.2014 and the
issue has been decided against the respondents.
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
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 25, 2014
'sn'
