Maharaj Singh & Ors. vs Land Acquisition Collector ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 7587 Del

$~25

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                                Judgment delivered on: 05.10.2015

+       W.P.(C) 1637/2015 & CM No.2939/2015


MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS.                                           .... Petitioners
                                       versus


LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (CENTRAL) & ANR.
                                      ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  :        Mr Anuroop P.S., Advocate.
For the Respondents :        Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr Kaushal
                             Raj Tater, Advocates for respondent No.1.
                             Ms Mrinalini S. Gupta with Ms Mrinmoi Chatterjee, Advocates
                             for respondent No.2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                       JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioners seek 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 proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which Award

No.240/86-87 dated 21.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 293/57/2 Min measuring 5 bighas

18 biswas in all in village Wazirabad shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. It is an admitted position that the physical possession of the subject land

was not taken over by the land acquiring agency. Insofar as the issue of

compensation is concerned, the case of the petitioners is that the compensation

has neither been offered nor paid to them. The stand of the respondents,

however, is that as per the Naksha Muntzmin there is a reference of some

disputes but since Statement A is not available, they cannot state with any

degree of clarity as to whether the money was deposited in Court or not. In

these circumstances, the averments made by the petitioners would have to be

accepted which would mean that the compensation has not been paid.

3. Admittedly, the physical possession of the subject land is with the

petitioners, the award was made more than five years prior to the

commencement of the 2013 Act and compensation has also not been paid.

4. 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) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

(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.

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

OCTOBER 05, 2015 st