Sunil Sikka vs Union Of India And Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 6718 Del

$~33

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Judgment delivered on: 08.09.2015

W.P.(C) 5147/2014 & CM 10264/2014

SUNIL SIKKA                                                    ..... Petitioner

                             versus

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

For the Petitioner                     : Ms Malini Sud & Ms Vidhi Goel
For the Respondent UOI                 : Mr Jasmeet Singh
For the Respondent LAC/L&B             : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA                 : Mr Arjun Pant


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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.1/2007-08 was made

on 07.08.2007. He also states that compensation has not yet been paid to

the petitioner. Therefore, the requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

have been fulfilled and the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the

subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is

situated in village Bamnoli, New Delhi, in Khasra No.17//9/2 (1-11), 12 (4-

16), 19 (4-16) and 22 (2-18) measuring 14 bighas 1 biswas in all.

2. Mr Yeeshu Jain appearing on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector

says that enhanced compensation was deposited in the Reference Court on

24.02.2011. However, annexure P-6 to the petition is a response to an RTI

query issued by the PIO/LAC (HW) which clearly states that compensation

of the khasra nos. in question has not been paid and that the same is lying

with the Land Acquisition Collector (South-West). In these circumstances, it

will have to be taken as an admitted case of compensation not having been

paid.

3. Thus, though physical possession of the subject land has been taken on

14.09.2007, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. 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

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J SEPTEMBER 08, 2015 kb