Dinesh Gautam And Anr vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1441 Del

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 1441 Del
Judgement Date : 23 February, 2016

Delhi High Court

Dinesh Gautam And Anr vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 23 February, 2016

Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed

$~58

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

+       W.P.(C) 8375/2015 & CM 17813/2013


DINESH GAUTAM AND ANR                                         ... Petitioners

                                        versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS                                  ... Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners                    : Mr Vishal Maan
For the Respondent L&B/LAC             : Mr Siddharth Panda


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

                             JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Siddharth Panda on

behalf of respondent nos. 1&2 is taken on record. The learned counsel

for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and

reiterates the contents of the writ petition in response to the said counter

affidavit.

2. By way of this writ petition 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, consequently, seek 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

petitioners' land, to the extent of 1 bigha only comprised in Khasra Nos.

1785/1-2 min and 1788/1-2 min 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. This

would not amount to compensation having been paid.

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

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

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

coming into force of the 2013 Act. Therefore, in view of the following

decisions of the Supreme Court and this court, the necessary ingredients

for attracting the deeming provision of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

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.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the

present petition is not maintainable because the petitioners are subsequent

purchasers. While it is true that, in the context of 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, we are of the view that the present petition, as it now

stands is not a challenge to the acquisition proceeding but a petition

seeking declaration of rights which had accrued to the petitioners 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