Ramesh Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 191 Del

$~41
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 11.01.2016

+       W.P.(C) 939/2015 &CM No.1637/2015
RAMESH SINGH & ORS.                                          .... Petitioners
                                       versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                        ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr N.S. Vasisht with Ms Jyoti Kataria, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms Abha Malhotra with Mr Kushal Sharma, Advocates for
                      respondent No.1.
                      Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for respondent No.3.
                      Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for
                      respondent Nos.4 & 5.
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.80-E/70-71 dated 09.01.1981 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioners' 1/8th share in the land comprised in Khasra Nos.1238

Min (13-10) and 1238 (0-5) measuring 13 bighas 15 biswas (to the extent

of 1/8th share therein) in all in village Mehrauli shall be deemed to have

lapsed.

2. The respondents claim that possession of 13 bighas 10 biswas of

land comprised in Khasra No.1238 Min was taken on 23.09.1981 and a

further 5 bighas of land comprised in Khasra No.1238 was taken

possession of on 19.06.1996. The petitioners, however, dispute this and

maintain that physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar

as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is clear that the petitioners

have not been paid compensation though some of the other persons

having land in the said khasra numbers have been paid compensation to

the extent of their 3/8th share.

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


JANUARY 11, 2016                          SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st