Geeta Gulati And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1183 Del

$~37
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 15.02.2016

+       WP(C) No.1221/2015

GEETA GULATI AND ORS                                           .... Petitioners

                                       versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                         ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners          : Mr Vikrant Sarin with Ms Madhulika Sarin
For the Respondent L&B       : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Mr Sunil Kumar
                              Jha and Mr Kushal Raj Tater and Ms Shreya Kasera
For the Responswnr DDA       : Mr J.H. Jafri


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA

                                  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.48/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos.52//3 (4-15) and 52//8

(2-16) measuring 7 bighas 11 biswas in all in village Ambarahai, Tehsil

Mehrauli, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. It is an admitted position that the physical possession of the said

land was taken on 09.07.2004.

3. It is an admitted position that the compensation for the said land

has not been paid to the petitioners. But, according to the respondents the

same has been deposited in the treasury.

4. Although physical possession has been taken by the land acquiring

agency, 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 to the petitioner, but has only been deposited in the

treasury, which does not amount to payment of compensation as

interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and

Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.

5. All 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) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(3) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(4) 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 said

acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the

subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

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

no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

R.K. GAUBA, J FEBRUARY 15, 2016 kb