Jagbir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India And Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 5236 Del

$~45

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 09.08.2016

+       W.P.(C) 11235/2015

JAGBIR SINGH & ANR                                                 ..... Petitioners

                             Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                                           ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr N.S. Chechi.
For the UOI         : Mr Chiranjeev Kumar with Mr Mukesh Sachdeva.
For the L&B/LAC     : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.
For the DDA         : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal for DDA.
                      Ms Minal Sehgal for applicant in CM 27335/2016.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

CM 27335/2016

1. This is an application for impleadment. We are not inclined to

entertain this application because the person seeking impleadment has no

right over the land in question. We are, therefore, dismissing this

application. However, the dismissal is without prejudice to the rights that he

may have against DDA in law.

2. The application is dismissed.

W.P.(C) 11235/2015 & CM 29273/2015

1. Mr Yeeshu Jain has handed over a counter affidavit on behalf of the

respondent no.3 which is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and places full

reliance on the averments made in the writ petition.

2. By way of this writ petition the petitioners are seeking 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 petitioners,

consequently, seek 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.6D/Supp/86-87 was made, inter

alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra No.268 (7-15)

measuring 7 bighas 15 biswas in Village Jasola shall be deemed to have

lapsed.

3. It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the

subject lands has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any

compensation been paid to the petitioners. The award was made more than

five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients of

section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this

Court in the following decisions stand satisfied:-

(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.

4. 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

lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

5. 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