Delhi High Court
Ramandeep & Ors vs Uoi & Ors. on 11 August, 2016
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11.08.2016
+ WP(C) Nos.12604/2004, 12606-12607/2004, 12605/2004
RAMANDEEP & ORS .... Petitioners
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 3 : Mr Sundeep Srivastava with Mr U.S. Dhindsa
For the Respondent 2 to 4 : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Ms Kaomudi
Kiran Pathak, Mr Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr
Kushal Raj Tater.
For the Respondent DUSIB : Mr Parvinder Chauhan
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not
pressing this writ petition insofar as the petitioner no.1 is concerned.
Insofar as the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are concerned they 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.
2. The petitioner numbers 2 & 3 are recorded owners of 3 bighas 1
biswa of land comprised in khasra no. 143 min. The said khasra number
143 min has a total extent of 6 bighas 5 biswas . The balance 3 bighas 4
biswas is not the subject matter of the present writ petition. The
petitioner no.4 is the recorded owner of khasra no. 672 to the extent of 1
bigha out of the total area of 4 bighas 16 biswas comprised in this khasra.
Both the khasras are in respect of lands situated in village Bhalswa
Jahangirpur, Delhi.
3. The relevant acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') culminated in award
no. 24/2005-06/DC(NW) dated 03.02.2006.
4. Insofar as khasra no. 143 min, to the extent of 3 bighas 1 biswa, is
concerned which belongs to petitioner nos. 2 &3, the case of the
respondents is that they have taken possession of the said land but have
not paid compensation in respect thereof. The aspect of the possession is
disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, it is clear
that while the issue of possession is disputed, compensation has
admittedly not been paid by the respondents nor received by the
petitioner nos. 2 to 3 in respect of 3 bighas 1 biswa of land comprised in
khasra no. 143 min. The award has also been made more than five years
prior to the commencement of 2013 Act i.e. (1.1.2014). Therefore, all the
ingredients of section 24(2) stand satisfied and the said acquisition shall
be deemed to have lapsed in respect of the said land.
5. The claim of the petitioner no.4 is in respect of 1 bigha of land
comprised in khasra no. 672 as mentioned above. The admitted case is
that neither possession of the said land has been taken nor has any
compensation been paid in respect thereof. Therefore, this is also a clear
case which falls within the provisions of section 24(2) and the acquisition
is liable to be declared as having lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.
6. We may point out that Mr Pathak appearing on behalf of the Land
Acquisition Collector had also submitted that steps towards completing
the acquisition in respect of petitioner nos. 2 to 4 could not be taken
because of a stay order passed by this court in this case. However, this
plea is not available to Mr Pathak in view of the decision of this court in
the case of Jagjit Singh v. Union of India- 2014 (211) DLT 15 and the
Supreme Court decision in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors v.
Jagjit Singh : 2015 (8) SCC 554.
7. Consequently the writ petitions are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
AUGUST 11, 2016
kb
