Om Prakash vs Union Of India & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 198 Del

$~48
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                 Judgment delivered on: 11.01.2016
W.P.(C) 3588/2015 & CM No.6392/2015
OM PRAKASH                                                          ..... Petitioner
                              versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                               ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  :        Ms Meenu Handa, Advocate.
For the Respondents :        Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for respondent
                             Nos.1 & 2.
                             Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for respondent No.3.

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 petitioner 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.14/2005-06 was

made on 17.08.2005. He also states that compensation has not yet been paid

to the petitioner. Therefore, the requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013

Act have been fulfilled and the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the

subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is

situated in Village Pansali in Khasra Nos.6//17Min (3-0) (to the extent of a

27/96th share therein) & 6//18 min (4-1) (to the extent of a 23/92nd share

therein).

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

taken on 23.11.2005 and 05.12.2012, compensation has not been paid to the

petitioner. 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