Delhi High Court
Dhyan Singh And Others vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 August, 2016
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11.08.2016
+ WP(C) 9242/2014
DHYAN SINGH AND OTHERS .... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Gaurav Puri with Ms Mansi Sinha
For the Respondent UOI : Mr Jaswinder Singh
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Arjun Pant
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 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. The
petitioners consequently seek a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to 'the 1894 Act'), which culminated in Award Nos. 2/1978-79
dated 08.05.1978, Award No. 4/79-80 dated 22.05.1979 and Award
No. 80/82-83 dated 10.03.1983 have lapsed in respect of the petitioners'
lands situate in village Kondli.
2. In the writ petition, the petitioners sought the above relief in
respect of the following lands:-
(i) in respect of Award No. 2/1978-79: khasra No. 93(2-02),
89/1(0-6), 106 min(1-19), 207/1(0-9), 108/1(0-18) and
164/2(1-16);
(ii) in respect of Award No. 4/1979-80: khasra No. 632/262 (3-
01);
(iii) in respect of Award No. 80/1982-83: khasra Nos. 253(1-13),
516/266-265 (5-08), 312 (3-15), 255(1-07), 207/2(4-16) and
108/2 (2-17).
3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he
has instructions on behalf of the petitioners to give up the claim of
lapsing with regard to khasra Nos. 93 and 106 min covered under Award
No. 2/1978-79 and khasra No. 632/262 covered under Award No. 4/1979-
80. It is also an admitted position that khasra Nos. 207/2 and 108/2
which were initially shown as covered under Award No. 80/1982-83
were, in fact, not acquired at all. Therefore, the present petition only
pertains to the balance lands amounting to 15 bighas and 3 biswas.
Insofar as khasra Nos. 89/1(0-6), 253(1-13), 312 (3-15) and 255 (1-07)
are concerned, the admitted position is that neither physical possession of
the subject lands has been taken by the land acquiring agency nor has
compensation been paid to the petitioners in respect thereof.
4. With regard to khasra No. 108/1(0-18), the admitted position is that
while possession was taken by the land acquiring agency on 05.06.1978,
no compensation has been paid in respect thereof to the land owners.
5. As regards khasra No. 164/2(1-16), possession has admittedly been
taken but no compensation has been paid in respect thereof. The position
with regard to khasra No. 516/266-265(5-08) is that physical possession
of the same was admittedly taken on 30.03.1983. But, the
respondent/Land Acquisition Collector has stated that the compensation
records are in a torn condition and, therefore, it cannot be stated as to
whether the same has been paid to the land owners or not. In this
circumstance, since there is no denial of the assertion on the part of the
petitioners that compensation for this piece of land has not been paid to
them, their statement would have to be accepted.
6. Therefore, it is evident that in respect of all the lands, which are
now the subject matter of the writ petition, compensation has not been
paid to the land owners. In some instances, physical possession has
admittedly been taken by the land acquiring agency while in other cases,
even physical possession, as noted above, has not been taken and is
admittedly with the petitioners. The Awards referred to above were also
made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act.
As such, 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.
6. As a result, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the
acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject lands, which were
initiated under the 1894 Act, are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
7. 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 11, 2016
SR
