Unique Wood Product & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 1013 Del

$~53
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 09.02.2016

+       WP(C) No. 7749/2015 and CM 15256/2015

UNIQUE WOOD PRODUCT & ORS.                                    .... Petitioners

                             versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                         ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Y.R. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Mr Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for
                      L&B/LAC
                      Ms Mrinalini Sen Gupta and Ms Krinmoi Chatterjee,
                      Advocates for DDA
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavits handed over on behalf of respondent Nos.2

& and 3 are taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does

not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as all the necessary

averments are contained in the writ petition which he reiterates.

2. 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. 20/2005-06 dated 28.11.2005 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra No. 7//12/2 min (0-04),

7//13/2 min (1-00) and 7//14/1/2 min (0-04), measuring 1 bigha and 8

biswas in all in village Mohammed Pur Majari shall be deemed to have

lapsed.

3. It is an admitted case that possession in respect of Khasra Nos.

7//13/2 min and 7//14/1/2 min has not been taken and is with the

petitioner. In so far as Khasra No. 7//12/2 min is concerned, it is admitted

that possession thereof was taken by the land acquiring agency on

12.02.2013.

4. Compensation has, admittedly, not been paid to the petitioners in

respect of any of the Khasra numbers referred to above. The award was

made more than 5 years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and

although physical possession of a small part of the land was taken by the

respondents, compensation in respect of the entire land has not been paid

to the petitioners. That being the case, the provisions of Section 24(2) of

the 2013 Act clearly apply in the light of the various decisions rendered

by the Supreme Court and this Court in:

(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.

5. 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.

6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall

be no order as to costs.

                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



FEBRUARY 09, 2016                             SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
rs