Delhi High Court
Neeraj Jain vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 April, 2016
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 19.04.2016
+ WP(C) No.9548/2015
NEERAJ JAIN .... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms Meenu Handa
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi
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 the respondent No.1 is taken
on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to
file any rejoinder-affidavit and reiterates the contents of 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, which is the subject- matter of the
present petition, ought to be deemed to have lapsed in view of the Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act.
3. The number of the award is 21/1992-93 and is dated 18.06.1992. It
is in respect of, inter alia, the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra
No.425 (1-09) measuring 1 bigha 9 biswas in village Jasola, Delhi.
Admittedly, physical possession of the subject land was taken on
19.01.2006. The said land has been utilized for channelization of river
Yamuna. Admittedly, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner.
4. Although physical possession of the subject land has admittedly
been taken, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and the
award is also made more than five years prior to the commencement of
the 2013 Act. Consequently, 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:-
(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: 2015 (3) SCC 353;
(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.
5. The inevitable conclusion would be that the acquisition
proceedings would have to be declared as having lapsed. But, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that as the land has already been
utilized, the petitioner is not claiming the return of the land and would be
satisfied, if compensation is given to the petitioner under the 2013 Act.
This is a fair and very reasonable approach adopted on behalf of the
petitioner. It also enables the respondents to retain the land for the
purpose for which it was sought to have been acquired without going
through an entirely new acquisition process. Therefore, we direct that the
compensation be paid to the petitioner in terms of the 2013 Act. The
same be done within six months.
6. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There shall be no
order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 19, 2016
'sn'
