Pushpendra Kumar And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 743 Del

$~49

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Judgment delivered on: 01.02.2016
W.P.(C) 7830/2015

PUSHPENDRA KUMAR AND ANR                                        ..... Petitioners

                            versus


UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                         ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Ashim Vachher
For the Respondents : Mr Chiranjiu Kumar for R-1/Union of India.
                      Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for L&B/LAC
                      Mr Pawan Mathur, Advocate for DDA.


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

                                JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

W.P.(C) 7830/2015 & CM No.15549/2015(stay)

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

counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4, is taken on record. The

learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any

rejoinder-affidavit and instead reiterates the contents of the writ petition in

response to the said counter-affidavit.

2. 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.14/87-88 dated 26.05.1987 was

made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos.

1044 (4-12) and 1107 (1-04) measuring 5 bighas 16 biswas in all in village

Satbari, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the

subject land has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any

compensation been paid to the petitioners. The award was made more than

five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. 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.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents also raised a contention that

the present petition would not be maintainable by the petitioners because

they 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, the present petition, as it now stands, is not a challenge to the

acquisition proceedings but is 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 provisions of the Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act,

the benefit of the same cannot be denied to the petitioners on the ground that

they are subsequent purchasers.

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

lands 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'