Suraj Prakash Batra & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 196 Del

$~47
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Judgment delivered on: 11.01.2016
W.P.(C) 3587/2015 & CM No.6391/2015

SURAJ PRAKASH BATRA & ORS.                                       ..... Petitioners

                            versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                                     ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Puneet Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr Siddharth Panda, Advocate for LAC/L&B
                      Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that this matter is

covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Girish Chhabra vs. Lt.

Governor of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014.

He states that although possession of the subject land has been taken, the

award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

1894 Act') was made more than five years prior to the commencement 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. In this case Award

No.14/92-93 was made on 19.06.1992. He also states that compensation has

not yet been paid to the petitioners. Therefore, the requirements of section

24(2) of the 2013 Act have been fulfilled and the petitioners are entitled to a

declaration that the subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has lapsed. The

land in question is situated in Village Kilokri in Khasra Nos.530/1/2 (1-0),

1260/535/1 (0-5) and 1261/535/1 (0-2) measuring 1 bigha 7 biswas in all.

2. Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has been

taken on 27.12.1990 and 09.02.2007, compensation has not been paid to the

petitioners. The Award is also more than five years prior to the

commencement of the 2013 Act. Consequently, the decision of this Court in

Girish Chhabra (supra) applies on all fours and the subject acquisition has

lapsed.

3. The writ petition is allowed by declaring that the acquisition in respect

of the subject land has lapsed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J JANUARY 11, 2016 st