Delhi High Court
Rajender Kumar Sharma vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 29 August, 2016
$~22
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 29.08.2016
+ W.P.(C) 7485/2014 & CM 26961/2016
RAJENDER KUMAR SHARMA ... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Sachin Sood
For the Respondent LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. Earlier a Division bench of this court delivered judgment in this
writ petition on 27.01.2015. Subsequently two review petitions being
R.P. 407/2015 and 332/2016 were filed on behalf of the DDA and the
Land Acquisition Collector respectively. The review petitions were
allowed by an order dated 29.07.2016 and the judgment dated 27.01.2015
was recalled. That is how the matter is before this bench today.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties which include
both the learned counsel for the Land Acquisition Collector and the
DDA. The statement made by the DDA in the review petition has been
taken as the counter affidavit on behalf of the DDA in the present
petition. The review petition filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition
Collector had also been treated as an additional affidavit filed on behalf
of the Land Acquisition Collector.
3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is 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
petitioner, consequently seeks 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 the Award No.
14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the
petitioner's land comprised in khasra numbers 244(4-16), 247/2(1-04),
247/3(2-16), 248/1(2-10), 248/2(0-07) & 249 (4-03) measuring 15 Bighas
16 Biswas in village Satbari, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
4. Although the respondents claimed that physical possession of the
subject land was taken by them on 14.07.1987, this is disputed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. Insofar as compensation is concerned,
according to the learned counsel for Land Acquisition Collector the same
was placed in the revenue deposit but this, would not amount to payment
of compensation in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.
3. In these circumstances, although there is a dispute with regard to
the physical possession of the subject land, compensation has not been
paid to the petitioner as indicated above. The award was made more than
five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the
ingredients necessary for the applicability 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
(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others:
WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this
Court; and
(v) Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors:
W.P.(C) 1393/2014.
4. As a result, the petitioner is 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 29, 2016
kb
