Delhi High Court
Aniljit Singh vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 1 February, 2016
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 01.02.2016
+ WP(C) No.2949/2015
ANILJIT SINGH .... Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Gaurav M.Librahan
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Pawan Mathur
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
WP(C) No.2949/2015 & CM No.5266/2015(stay)
1. 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. A declaration is sought to the
effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which
Award No.14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect
of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos.824 (2-0) and 825 (3-16)
measuring 5 bighas 16 biswas in all in village Satbari, New Delhi, shall
be deemed to have lapsed.
2. The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said
land was taken on 14.07.1987. This is disputed by the petitioner, who
claims to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.
3. Insofar as the question of compensation is concerned, the same has
not been paid or offered to the petitioner but, according to the
respondents, the same has been deposited in the treasury. But this would
not amount to payment of compensation as interpreted by the Supreme
Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.
4. Without going into the controversy with regard to physical
possession, it is clear that the award, in the present case was made more
than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and that
compensation has also not been paid to the petitioner.
5. 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 the
following cases stand satisfied:-
(1) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6
SCC 564;
(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013
decided on 10.09.2014;
(3) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C)
2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(4) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:
WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
6. We are left to consider the contention raised by the learned counsel
for the respondents that the present petition would not be maintainable by
the petitioner because the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser. While it is
true that, in the context of 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 agree with
Mr Librahan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present
petition as it now stands is not a challenge to the acquisition proceedings
but a petition seeking declaration of rights which had accrued to the
petitioner by virtue of the deeming provision of section 24(2) of 2013
Act. Once the acquisition has lapsed because of the triggering of the
deeming provision of section 24(2) of 2013 Act, the benefit of the same
cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground that he is a subsequent
purchaser.
7. As a result, the petitioner is 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
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 01, 2016
'sn'
