Jyotsna Suri vs Union Of India & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 7391 Del

$~54
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Judgment delivered on: 28.09.2015

+       W.P.(C) 2003/2015 & CM Nos.3583/2015, 20492/2015

JYOTSNA SURI                                                 .... Petitioner

                                  versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                    .... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner  : Mr N.S.Vashisht, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr Dhanesh Relan for DDA.
                      Mr Siddharth Panda, Advocate for L& B/LAC.
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 Siddharth Panda, the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 & 5, is taken on record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder

affidavit inasmuch as all the necessary averments are contained in the writ

petition.

2. The petitioner seeks 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 proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

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

No.14/87-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 143 (4-16), 144 (3-0),

615(1-16), 616 (4-16) and 852 (2-12) measuring 17 bighas in all in village

Satbari, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was

taken on 14.07.1987, the petitioner disputes this and maintains that physical

possession has not been taken. However, insofar as the issue of

compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not been

paid. However, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that this

petition is not maintainable by the present petitioner in view of the fact that

he is a subsequent purchaser. The learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that it is settled law that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge

the acquisition proceedings and he is only entitled to seek compensation.

They placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of KN

Aswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr. LRs.& Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.:

AIR 2014 SC 279. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that

the transfer whereby the original owners are alleged to have transferred their

right in favour of the current petitioner would not confer any title upon the

petitioner and at the most the petitioner would be entitled only to claim

compensation on the basis of the original owner's title. A reference in this

connection was also made to the Supreme Court decision in the case of

Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Ors.: (2008) 9 SCC

177.

4. There is no doubt that in the context of the 1894 Act the Supreme

Court clearly held that a subsequent purchaser would not have a right to

challenge the acquisition and would only have a right to seek compensation.

But, the position obtaining at present is different. This is a petition which

does not seek to challenge the acquisition proceedings but seeks a

declaration of a right which has enured to the benefit of the petitioner by

virtue of the operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Once the

acquisition is deemed to have lapsed because of the operation of the

deeming provision of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the benefit of the same

cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a

subsequent purchaser. This is, of course, provided that the conditions

precedent for the application of the deeming provision contained in Section

24(2) of the 2013 Act are satisfied.

5. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, this much

is clear that the Award was made more than five years prior to the

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

paid. 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) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu

and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014

decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors: WP(C)

2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.

6. 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

land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

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

order as to costs.

                                            BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J


SEPTEMBER 28, 2015                               SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
'sn'