Kusum Lata vs Union Of India And Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 8307 Del

$~97

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Judgment delivered on: 03.11.2015

+       W.P.(C) 2500/2015 & CM 4466/2015

KUSUM LATA                                                         ..... Petitioner

                             versus


UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                             ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Ms Richa Oberoi
For the Respondent No.1      : Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj with Mr Priyank Khattar
For the Respondent No.2      : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent No.3      : Mr Dhanesh Relan with Mr Arush Bhandari

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

                                    JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. Mr Siddharth Panda, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent No. 2, has handed over the counter-affidavit. The same is taken

on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any

rejoinder affidavit as the necessary averments are 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 proceeding initiated

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

Act') and in respect of which Award No.06/2005-06/DC(N-W) dated

12.07.2005 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land

comprised in Khasra Nos. 50/1 min (0-16) and 50/10/1 min (1-0) measuring

1 bigha 16 biswas in all in village Pehladpur Bangar, 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; and

(iv) Surender Singh v. 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 NOVEMBER 03, 2015 SR