Inder Raj Kohli & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 5496 Del

$~22
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 23.08.2016

+       W.P.(C) 9203/2014 & CM 20918/2014
INDER RAJ KOHLI & ANR.                                         .... Petitioners
                                       versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                          ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners        : Mr M.P. Bhargava.
For the Respondent Nos. 1&2: Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj.
For the Respondent Nos. 3 : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal.
For the Respondent Nos. 4&5: Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.
For the Respondent No.6    : Mr Arvind Kumar.

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 initiated under the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which

Award No. 102/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in

respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Plot No. D-5/16 measuring

233.3 Sq. Yds. in Krishna Nagar, village Ghondli, Delhi-51, shall be

deemed to have lapsed.

2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land

was taken on 05.02.1987, the petitioners dispute this and maintain that

physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar as the issue of

compensation is concerned, the petitioners' case is that compensation has

neither been offered nor paid to the petitioners nor his predecessor-in-

interest. The stand of the respondents, however, is that the Naksha

Muntzamin is in a torn condition and statement 'A' is not available and

therefore the respondents are not in a position to specifically state as to

whether the compensation has been paid or not. In these circumstances

the averments made by the petitioners would have to be accepted and that

means that compensation has not been paid.

3. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, this

much is clear that the Award was made more than five years prior to the

commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been

paid. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of

the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the

following cases 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: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(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. 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 land 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


AUGUST 23, 2016                           ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
ab