Hari Prakash vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 786 Del

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 786 Del
Judgement Date : 2 February, 2016

Delhi High Court

Hari Prakash vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 2 February, 2016

$~29
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 02.02.2016

+       W.P.(C) 3501/2015 and CM No. 6262/2015
HARI PRAKASH                                                    .... Petitioner
                                       versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                                     ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr N.S. Dalal, Mr Devesh Pratap Singh, Ms Nidhi
                               Dalal and Ms Ruchika Sharma
For the Respondent Nos. 1&2 : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent No.3     : Mr Dhanesh Relan

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

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

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. 11/2004-05 dated 06.07.2004 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No. 48/16 min (1-09)

measuring 01 bighas 09 biswas in all in village Sannoth shall be deemed

to have lapsed.

2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land

was taken on 06.07.2005, the petitioner disputes this and maintains that

physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar as the issue of

compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not been

paid.

3. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, this

much is clear that the Award was made more than five years prior to the

commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been

paid. 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) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

(2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:

WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the DDA has vehemently argued that the

land is necessary for the Housing Project at Sector G-2, G-6, G-7 and G-

8, Narella in village Sannoth. The avenue of fresh acquisition is always

open and it is specifically so provided in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

which categorically states that even after the lapsing of the acquisition

under the 1894 Act, the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, can

initiate proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the

provisions of the 2013 Act. We may also point out that no development

work has been done on the subject land. 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