Munshi Ram & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 742 Del

$~46
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 01.02.2016

+       WP(C) No.4130 /2015

MUNSHI RAM & ORS                                                   .... Petitioners
                                       versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                              ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners                    :        Mr Ajay Pratap Singh Sehgal
For the Respondents                     :       Mr Bhagwan Swarup Shukla for Union
                                                of India.
For the Respondent DDA                  :       Mr Dhanesh Relan
For the Respondent L&B/LAC              :       Mr Siddharth Panda


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                    JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

WP(C) No.4130 /2015 & CM No.7497/2015(stay)

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

learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No.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. 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. 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.23/1987-88 dated 17.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos.274 (4-18) and 514 (4-9)

measuring 9 bighas 7 biswas in all in village Maidan Garhi, shall be

deemed to have lapsed.

3. The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said

land was taken on 16.07.1987. This is disputed by the petitioners, who

claim to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.

4. Insofar as the question of compensation is concerned, the same has

not been offered or paid to the petitioners but, according to the

respondents, the same has been deposited in the treasury. That would be

of no use to them inasmuch as such a deposit does 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. The award was also made more than five years prior to the

commencement of the 2013 Act. Therefore, without going into the

controversy with regard to the physical possession, 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.

5. 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.

6. 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'