Delhi High Court
Ajay Sharma vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 9 August, 2016
$~40
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.08.2016
+ W.P.(C) 8037/2015 & CM 16477/2015 & 27484/2016
AJAY SHARMA ... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr B.S. Maan with Mr Vishal Maan & Mr Shitiz
Agnihotri.
For the LAC/L&B : Mr Siddharth Panda.
For the DDA : Mr Pawan Mathur.
Mr Nitin Mishra for applicant in CM 27484/2016.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. By way of this writ petition 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. 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.
14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the
petitioner's land, comprised in Khasra No. 245 (3-16) measuring 3 bighas
and 16 biswas in all, in Village Satbari, New Delhi, shall be deemed to
have lapsed. It is pertinent to point out, at this juncture, that there is a
dispute with regard to the title over the said land between the petitioner
on the one hand and respondent nos.4B, 4C and 4D on the other. We are
not getting into this issue of title and that would have to be sorted out
before an appropriate court of law. In the present petition, we are only
concerned with the acquisition proceedings.
2. In this case, it has been admitted by the concerned Land
Acquisition Collector that physical possession of the subject land has not
been taken. This is evident from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of
the concerned Land Acquisition Collector. It is, however, contended by
the learned counsel for the respondents that the amount of compensation
in respect of the same was deposited in the treasury, though the same has
not been paid to the land owner nor was it offered to the land owner.
3. That being the position, the question of payment of compensation
will have to be construed in the light of the various decisions rendered by
the Supreme Court and this Court in:-
(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.
In Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) it has been held that
unless and until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested,
mere deposit of the compensation amount in a court would not amount to
payment of compensation. This aspect has also been considered in
Gyanender Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others: WP (C)
1393/2014 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.09.2014.
Consequently, the mere deposit in the treasury, without being offered or
tendered to the persons entitled would not ipso facto amount to payment
of compensation.
4. As such, in the present case, neither physical possession of the
subject land has been taken nor has any compensation been paid to the
land owners. The Award was made more than five years prior to the
coming into force of the 2013 Act.
5. As a result, the owners (whether they be the petitioner or the
respondent nos.4B, 4C and 4D), are 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.
6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
AUGUST 09, 2016
ab
