Ramesh Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 7857 Del

$~66

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Judgment delivered on: 13.10.2015

W.P.(C) 2469/2015 & CM No.4434/2015

RAMESH KUMAR                                                    ..... Petitioner

                            versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                         ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Ms Richa Oberoi
For the Respondents : Mr Anuj Aggarwal for Union of India.
                     Mr Rajesh Kumar Das for R-1/Union of India.
                     Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for L&B/LAC
                    Mr Dhanesh Relan for DDA

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 Yeeshu Jain, the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, 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. 49/2/2 Min (0-08) and 49/9/2 Min (0-12)

measuring 1 bigha in all, in village Pehladpur Bangar, shall be deemed to

have lapsed.

3. Insofar as khasra No.49/9/2 Min (0-12) is concerned, it is admitted by

the respondents that the physical possession of the same could not be taken.

As regards the other khasra number, the stand of the respondents is that

physical possession of the said land was taken on 31.08.2005. This is

disputed by the petitioner, who claims to be in actual physical possession of

the entire land.

4. Insofar as the question of compensation is concerned, the same has not

been paid to the petitioner. It is, therefore, clear that although physical

possession of part of the land is disputed, compensation in respect of the

entire land has not been paid to the petitioner. The award was also made

more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. As such,

all the necessary 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.

5. 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.

6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no

order as to costs.

                                              BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J


OCTOBER 13, 2015/'sn'                              SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J