M/S Ryan Constuction Pvt Ltd. vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1440 Del

$~5

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 23.02.2016

+       W.P.(C) 8374/2015


M/S RYAN CONSTUCTION PVT LTD.                                  ... Petitioner

                                        versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                               ... Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners      : Mr B.S.Maan
For the Respondent No.2  : Mr Pawan Mathur and Mr Himanshu Gupta
For the Respondent/L&B/LAC: Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent/DDA   : Ms Mrinalini Sen and Ms M.Chatterjee



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

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

W.P.(C) 8374/2015 & CM No.17812/2015(stay)

1. The counter-affidavit handed over by Mr Siddharth Panda, the

learned counsel on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2, is taken on record.

The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder-

affidavit and reiterates the averments made in the writ petition in

response to the said counter-affidavit.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks 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 Award No.

15/1987-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioner's land, comprised in Khasra Nos. 1785/1-2 min measuring 1

bigha in all, in village Chattarpur, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have

lapsed.

3. In this case, it has been admitted by the concerned Land

Acquisition Collector that physical possession of the subject land has not

been taken. This is evident from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of

the concerned Land Acquisition Collector. It is, however, contended by

the learned counsel for the respondents that the amount of compensation

in respect of the same was deposited in the treasury, though the same has

not been paid to the land owner nor was it offered to the land owner.

4. That being the position, the question of payment of compensation

will have to be construed in the light of the various decisions rendered by

the Supreme Court and this Court in:-

(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 decided on 10.09.2014; and

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court.

In Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) it has been held that unless and

until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere

deposit of the compensation amount in a court would not amount to

payment of compensation. This aspect has also been considered in

Gyanender Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others: WP (C)

1393/2014 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.09.2014.

Consequently, the mere deposit in the treasury, without being offered or

tendered to the persons entitled would not ipso facto amount to payment

of compensation.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents had also raised the

objection that the present petition would not be maintainable because the

petitioner is a subsequent purchaser. Though, under the 1894 Act, the

Supreme Court has held that a subsequent purchaser would not have a

right to challenge the acquisition and would only have a right to

compensation, in the present petition the challenge is not to the

acquisition proceedings but, the petition is one whereby a declaration is

being sought of rights which accrued to the petitioner by virtue of the

deeming provision of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Once the

acquisition has lapsed because of the triggering of the deeming provision

of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the benefit of the same cannot be denied

to the petitioner on the ground that he is a subsequent purchaser.

6. As such, in the present case, neither physical possession of the

subject land has been taken nor has any compensation been paid to the

petitioner. The Award was made more than five years prior to the coming

into force of the 2013 Act.

7. Consequently, 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.

8. 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 23, 2016 'sn'