Delhi High Court
Shri Rami & Ors vs Land Acquisition Collector ... on 8 August, 2016
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 08.08.2016
+ W.P.(C) 8386/2014 & CM 19422/2014
SHRI RAMI & ORS .... Petitioners
versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR SOUTH-EAST & ORS.
..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Inder Singh
For the Respondent LAC/L&B : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Dhanesh Relan
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1 has been
handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain. The same is taken on record. The
learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder
affidavit inasmuch as he would be relying on the averments made in the
writ petition.
2. 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 initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which
Award No.50-A/69-70 dated 4.11.1981 (Suppl.) was made, inter alia, in
respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 2021/956 (7-
04), 979 min (3-18), 2749/801 (0-18), 833 (0-08), 902 (1-14), 1854/888
(0-12), 1846/760 (0-06), 2777/1922/972 (0-11), 1130/1 (0-19) and
1038/2 (3-14) has lapsed. A similar declaration is sought in respect of
Award No. 18/1987-1988 dated 05.06.1987 in respect of the petitioners'
land comprised in khasra nos. 2916/2147/1044 (1-01). The total extent of
the petitioners' land in all the above khasras is 21 bighas 05 biswas in
village Tughlakabad, Delhi.
3. The petitioner had also filed this petition in respect of khasra no.
454 (0-07) but that does not form part of any award and therefore is
clearly outside the acquisition proceedings.
4. The respondents claimed that possession of khasra nos. 2021/956,
979 min was taken on 24.02.2004 and the possession of land falling in
khasra nos. 2749/801, 803, 902, 1854/888 and 1846/760 was taken on
16.03.20014. This is, however, disputed by the petitioners who insist that
the physical possession is with them and was never taken by the land
acquiring agency. With regard to khasra nos. 2777/1922/972, 1130/1 and
1038/2, it is admitted that possession could not be taken. Possession was
also admittedly not taken in respect of khasra nos. 2916/2147/1044. As
regards compensation it is an admitted position that the same has not been
paid to the petitioners.
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 petitioners are 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
AUGUST 08, 2016 ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
kb
