Jagbir Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 7642 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 06.10.2015
+      W.P.(C) 199/2015 & CM 318/2015
JAGBIR SINGH & ORS                                              ... Petitioners

                                          versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                            ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners            :   Mr Nishant Prateek
For the Respondent No. 1       :   Mr Bhagvan Swarup Shukla
For the Respondent No. 2       :   Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
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. The counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2 has been handed

over by Mr Yeeshu Jain. The same is taken on record. The learned counsel

for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as

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

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that this matter is

covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Girish Chhabra vs. Lt.

Governor of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014.

He states that although possession of the subject land has been taken, the

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

1894 Act') was made more than five years prior to the commencement 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. In this case, Award

No.58/70-71 was made on 31.12.1970. He also states that compensation has

not yet been paid to the petitioners. Therefore, the requirements of section

24(2) of the 2013 Act have been fulfilled and the petitioners are entitled to a

declaration that the subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has lapsed. The

land in question is situated in Khasra No.327 measuring 4 bighas 18 biswas

(1/8th share) in all, in village Pitampura. The writ petition, being

WP(C) 8441/2004, in respect of the co-sharers to the extent of 7/8th share,

has already been allowed by this Court by virtue of the judgment dated

15.09.2015.

3. Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has been

taken on 04.12.1991, compensation has not been paid to the petitioners. The

Award is also more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013

Act. Consequently, the decision of this Court in Girish Chhabra (supra)

applies on all fours and the subject acquisition has lapsed.

4. The writ petition is allowed by declaring that the acquisition in respect

of the subject land has lapsed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                        BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J


OCTOBER 06, 2015                         SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR