Deen Mohammad Deenu vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 8715 Del

$~45
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 23.11.2015

+   WP(C) No.2721/2015 & CM 4883/2015
DEEN MOHAMMAD DEENU                                               .... Petitioner
                          versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.                                    ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner                     :Mr Vishal Maan with Mr Naresh Maan
For the Respondent L&B/LAC              :Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent DDA                 :Mr Aditya Parolia with Mr Amrindu Singh
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. 1 & 2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as he

would be relying on the averments made in the writ petition.

2. 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. 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.14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No.892/2measuring 2 bighas

8 biswas in all in village Satbari, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have

lapsed.

3. The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said

land was taken on 14.07.1987. This is disputed by the petitioner, who

claims to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.

4. In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, the same

has not been paid to the petitioner but, according to the respondents, the

same has been deposited in the treasury. Mere deposit in the treasury,

without compensation first having been offered to the petitioner, would

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. It is also clear that

without going into the controversy with regard to the physical possession,

the award was made more than 5 years prior to the commencement of the

2013 Act.

5. 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.

6. 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 land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

7. 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