Vikram Madhok vs Union Of India & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 8682 Del

$~89

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 23.11.2015

+       W.P.(C) 6766/2015 & CM 12351/2015


VIKRAM MADHOK                                                           ... Petitioner

                                        versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                                   ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner           : Mr Gurmehar S. Sistani
For the Respondent No.1      : Mr Prasanta Varma with Mr Jitendra K. Tripathi
For the Respondent DDA       : Mr Dhanesh Relan
For the Respondent No.3&4    : Mr Siddharth Panda


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 Panda on behalf of

respondent nos. 3&4 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as the necessary

averments are already contained in the writ petition.

2. By way of this writ petition the petitioner seeks 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.

14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioner's land, comprised in Khasra No. 183 measuring 4 bighas and

16 biswas in all, in Village Satbari, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have

lapsed.

3. In this case, it has been admitted by the concerned Land

Acquisition Collector that physical possession of the subject land has not

been taken. This is evident from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of

the concerned Land Acquisition Collector. It is, however, contended by

the learned counsel for the respondents that the amount of compensation

in respect of the same was deposited in the treasury, though the same has

not been paid to the land owner nor was it offered to the land owner.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents also contend that this

petition is not maintainable by the present petitioner in view of the fact

that he is a subsequent purchaser. The learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that it is settled law that a subsequent purchaser cannot

challenge the acquisition proceedings and he is only entitled to seek

compensation. They placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the

case of KN Aswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr. LRs.& Ors. Vs. State of

Karnataka & Ors.: AIR 2014 SC 279. The learned counsel for the

respondents submitted that the transfer whereby the original owners are

alleged to have transferred their right in favour of the current petitioner

would not confer any title upon the petitioner and at the most the

petitioner would be entitled only to claim compensation on the basis of

the original owner's title. A reference in this connection was also made

to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant

Governor of Delhi and Ors.: (2008) 9 SCC 177.

5. There is no doubt that in the context of the 1894 Act the Supreme

Court clearly held that a subsequent purchaser would not have a right to

challenge the acquisition and would only have a right to seek

compensation. But, the position obtaining at present is different. This is a

petition which does not seek to challenge the acquisition proceedings but

seeks a declaration of a right which has enured to the benefit of the

petitioner by virtue of the operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Once the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed because of the operation of

the deeming provision of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the benefit of the

same cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner

is a subsequent purchaser. This is, of course, provided that the conditions

precedent for the application of the deeming provision contained in

Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are satisfied.

6. That being the position, the question of payment of compensation

will have to be construed in the light of the various decisions rendered by

the Supreme Court and this Court in:-

(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.

In Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) it has been held that unless and

until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere

deposit of the compensation amount in a court would not amount to

payment of compensation. This aspect has also been considered in

Gyanender Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others: WP (C)

1393/2014 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.09.2014.

Consequently, the mere deposit in the treasury, without being offered or

tendered to the persons entitled would not ipso facto amount to payment

of compensation.

7. As such, in the present case, neither physical possession of the

subject land has been taken nor has any compensation been paid to the

petitioners. The Award was made more than five years prior to the

coming into force of the 2013 Act.

8. 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.

9. 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 23, 2015 kb