Delhi High Court
Shri Kanwar Singh & Ors vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 1 February, 2016
$~34
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 01.02.2016
W.P.(C) 3354/2015
SHRI KANWAR SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr N.S.Dalal
For the Respondents/ : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Mr Sunil Kumar Jha
LAC/L&B/GNCTD.
For the Respondent/DDA : Ms Mrinalini Gupta and Ms Mrinmoi Chatterjee
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 3354/2015 & CM No.6009/2015(stay)
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking 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.30/2002-03 dated 09.12.2002 was
made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra No.
25//3 measuring 3 bighas 19 biswas in village Pochanpur, Dwarka, shall be
deemed to have lapsed.
2. It is an admitted position that compensation has neither been paid nor
offered to the petitioners. Insofar as physical possession of the subject land
is concerned, the petitioners claim that physical possession is with them.
Initially, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Land
Acquisition Collector that physical possession had been taken but on going
through the counter-affidavit furnished by the Land Acquisition Collector, it
becomes clear from para 8 thereof that the possession proceedings needed to
be corrected because of the reason that the subject land was partly built up.
This clearly indicates that the physical possession of the subject land had not
been taken. The award was made more than five years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act and as such, all the ingredients of section
24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in
the following decisions stand satisfied:-
(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.
(v) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.:
W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this
Court.
3. 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.
4. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no
order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 01, 2016
'sn'
