Sudershan Kumar Kohli vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 6970 Del

$~34

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Judgment delivered on: 15.09.2015

W.P.(C) 2738/2015 & CM No.4908/2015

SUDERSHAN KUMAR KOHLI                                             ..... Petitioner

                             versus


GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                      ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Gaurav M.Liberhan
For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr Kushal Raj,
                    Advocates for L&B/LAC/GNCTD.
                     Mr Arjun Pant Advocates for DDA

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

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The additional affidavit handed over by Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak on

behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 is taken on record. The kabza karwahi

dated 31.12.2013 handed over by Mr Pathak is also taken on record. The

rejoinder-affidavit on behalf of the petitioner to the counter-affidavit filed on

behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 along with annexures, is also taken on

record.

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.7/98-99 dated 21.06.1999 was

made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos.

725(1-3), 751 (0-12),762 (0-16), 825(1-3) and 827(0-7) measuring 3 bighas

18 biswas in all, in village Malik Pur Kohi, Rang Puri Tehsil, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the

subject lands has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any

compensation been paid to the petitioner. The award was made more than

five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the 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.

4. 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.

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

order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 'sn'