Delhi High Court
Bhim Sain Goel & Ors. vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 2 February, 2016
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 02.02.2016
+ W.P.(C) 3209/2015
BHIM SAIN GOEL & ORS. .... Petitioners
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Ravinder Sethi, Sr Advocate with Mr Vishwa
Ranjan Kumar, Mr Rajiv Kumar Ghawana and
Mr Arvind Kumar
For the Respondent Nos. 1&2 : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent No.3 : Mr Arjun Pant
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. 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. 1/DC/W-2005-06 dated 22.08.2005 was made, inter alia, in
respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 57/23 (2-08),
65/3 (2-08) and 65/8 (0-14) measuring 05 bighas 10 biswas in all in
village Mundka shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. The Land Acquisition Collector claims that possession of the said
land was taken on 24.12.2008. Interestingly, they claim that immediately
on taking over possession of the subject land the same was handed to the
DDA. However, the affidavit filed on behalf of the DDA states that
possession was not handed over by the Land Acquisition Collector to the
DDA. Apart from this the learned counsel for the petitioners points out
that the respondents / LAC could not have taken possession of the subject
land because there was a status quo order which had been passed by a
Division Bench of this court on 18.11.2005 in W.P.(C) 21639/2005. That
writ petition was dismissed on 20.08.2007. Thereafter a special leave
petition was filed before the Supreme Court being S.L.P.(C) No.
17504/2007 (later the special leave petition was admitted and has now
become Civil Appeal Nos. 4116-4120 of 2009) in which stay was granted
on 19.09.2007 and that has continued till date. Therefore, according to
the learned counsel for the petitioners, possession of the said land has not
been taken by the respondents. Insofar as the issue of compensation is
concerned, it is an admitted position that the same has not been offered or
paid to the petitioners.
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. 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.
5. 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 02, 2016
SU
