Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Kumar & Ors vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors on 9 August, 2016
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.08.2016
+ W.P.(C) 6882/2014
SANJEEV KUMAR & ORS .... Petitioners
versus
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Ms Shruti with Mr Dhruv Sharma.
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.
For the Respondent DDA : Mr S.R. Sharma.
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 the Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act.
2. The number of the award is 8/1980-81 and is dated 09.04.1980. It
is in respect of, inter alia, the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra
No.65/11 min measuring 3 bighas in village Mehrauli. Admittedly,
physical possession of the subject land was taken on 06.01.1979. The
said land has already been utilized by the respondents. Admittedly, the
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 the land is to be utilized and
physical possession has been taken, 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 09, 2016
ab
