J.P. Gupta (H.U.F.) vs Land Acquisition Collector And ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 4255 Del

$~19

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Judgment delivered on: 26.05.2015

W.P.(C) 8992/2014 & CM No.20543/2014

J.P. GUPTA (H.U.F.)                                            ..... Petitioner

                          versus


LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ORS                            ..... Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner    :   Mr Akhil Mittal and Ms Shiba Batra
For the Respondents   :   Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for R-1 &3

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 petitioner 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 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 proceedings initiated

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

Act') in respect of which Award No.217/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 was

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

No. 68/1 Min measuring 4 bighas 10 biswas in Village Kilokri, 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 petitioner. 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. 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.

5. 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 26, 2015 'sn'