Delhi High Court
Giani & Ors. vs State And Ors. on 22 February, 2016
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 22.02.2016
+ W.P.(C) 498/2015 & CM No.856/2015 (directions)
GIANI & ORS. .... Petitioners
versus
STATE AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Rahul Gupta with Mr Shekhar Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for
respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Ms Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for respondent No.3.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain on behalf of
respondent No.2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the
petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and reiterates the
contents of the writ petition.
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. The petitioners seek a declaration
that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which
Award No.28/02-03 dated 24.10.2002 was made, inter alia, in respect of
the petitioners' land comprising Khasra Nos.53//2/2 (1-18), 4(0-05) and 7
(0-06) measuring 2 bighas 9 biswas in all in village Bijwasan has lapsed.
3. Insofar as Khasra Nos.4 & 7 are concerned, it is an admitted
position that possession in respect thereof has not been taken by the land
acquiring agency and physical possession of the same is with the
petitioners. Insofar as Khasra Nos.53//2/2 is concerned, admittedly, 1
biswa of land has not been taken possession of by the land acquiring
agency. There are, however, disputed claims with regard to the physical
possession of the remaining 1 bigha 17 Biswas of land.
4. The position with regard to the compensation is that the same has
admittedly not been paid to the petitioners.
5. Without going into the controversy with regard to the physical
possession insofar as 1 bigha - 17 biswas of land in Khasra No.53//2/2 is
concerned, it is clear that the award was made more than 5 years prior to
the commencement of the 2013 Act and that compensation has also not
been paid to the petitioners.
6. 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, inter
alia, 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: 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.
7. 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.
8. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
FEBRUARY 22nd, 2016 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st
