Delhi High Court
Rajesh Kumar & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 August, 2016
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 02.08.2016
+ WP(C) No.9269/2014 & CM 20635/2016
RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. .... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr P.S. Bindra
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Arjun Pant
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioners seek 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 Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act.
2. The number of the award is 1934-D/81-82 and is dated 19.10.1981.
It is in respect of, inter alia, the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra
Nos. 16 (2-08), 17 (0-13), 18/2 (2-02), 19/1/2 (1-16), 19/2/2 (0-12), 29/1
(0-18), 31/1 (1-05), 32/1/2 (2-14), 37/1 min (3-12), 38/1 (6-00), 39 (4-06)
& 41 (3-04) measuring 29 bighas 10 biswas in village Molar Band.
Admittedly, physical possession of the subject land was taken on
10.04.1997. The said land has been utilized for a Multi Storey Housing
Complex. Admittedly, compensation has not been paid to the petitioners.
3. Although physical possession of the subject land has admittedly
been taken, compensation has not been paid to the petitioners and the
award was 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.
4. The inevitable conclusion would be that the acquisition
proceedings would have to be declared as having lapsed. But, the learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that as physical possession of the land
has been taken and the same has already been utilised for a housing
complex, the petitioners are not claiming the return of the land and would
be satisfied, if compensation is given to the petitioners under the 2013
Act. This is a fair and very reasonable approach adopted on behalf of the
petitioners. 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 petitioners in terms of the 2013 Act. The
same be done within six months.
5. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There shall be no
order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
AUGUST 02, 2016
ab
