Nafe Singh & Anr vs The Hon’Ble Lieutenant ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 736 Del

$~45
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Judgment delivered on: 01.02.2016

W.P.(C) 4100/2015

NAFE SINGH & ANR                                               ..... Petitioners

                            versus

THE HON'BLE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners  : Mr N.Prabhakar
For the Respondents  : Mr Siddharth Panda for the L&B/LAC
For the Respondent/DDA : Ms Gurneet Kaur for Mr B.S.Dhir for the DDA.
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 Siddharth Panda, the learned

counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 4, is taken on record. The

learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any

rejoinder-affidavit and places reliance on the averments made in the writ

petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that this matter is

covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Girish Chhabra vs. Lt.

Governor of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014.

He states that although possession of the subject land has been taken, the

award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

1894 Act') was made more than five years prior to the commencement 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. In this case, Award

No.24A/74-75 (Suppl.) was made on 24.06.1983. He also states that

compensation has not yet been paid to the petitioners. Therefore, the

requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have been fulfilled and the

petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the subject acquisition under the

1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is situated in village Sultanpur in

Khasra No.190/2 measuring 2 bighas 3 biswas (3/4th share).

3. The learned counsel for the respondents states that physical possession

of the subject land was taken on 27.06.1983. This is also admitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioners. Insofar as compensation is concerned, it

is the case of the petitioners that the same has not been offered or paid to

them. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the

compensation was deposited in the treasury. But, inasmuch as the same was

neither offered nor paid to the petitioners, it cannot be regarded as

compensation having been paid within the meaning of Section 24(2) of the

2013 Act. Consequently, the decision of this Court in Girish Chhabra

(supra) applies on all fours and the subject acquisition has lapsed.

4. The writ petition is allowed by declaring that the acquisition in respect

of the subject land has lapsed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J FEBRUARY 01, 2016 'sn'