Delhi High Court
Mukesh Kochhar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 January, 2016
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~50
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 11.01.2016
+ W.P.(C) 3711/2015 & CM No.6612/2015
MUKESH KOCHHAR ... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr N.P. Sahni with Ms Sri Tanuja N. and Mr Ruchesh Sinha,
Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr Arun Bhardwaj with Mr Mimansak Bhardwaj and Mr
Ashish Pandey, Advocates for respondent No.1.
Mr Dhanesh Relan, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates 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. By way of this writ petition, 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. The
petitioner, consequently seeks a declaration that the acquisition
proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the 1894 Act') and in respect of which the Award No.
13/87-88 dated 16.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the
petitioner's land comprised in khasra number 243(3-2) (to the extent of
10 biswas 7 biswansis) in Village Saidulajab shall be deemed to have
lapsed.
2. It is claimed by the petitioner that the physical possession of the
subject land has not been taken by the land acquiring agency. However,
the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the possession was
taken on 17.07.1987. At best it can be stated that the question of physical
possession is disputed. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, it is
the case of the petitioner that the same has not been paid to them whereas
it is the case of the respondents that the said compensation was deposited
in court pursuant to an order passed by a Vacation Judge of this court in
C.M.(Main) 1392/2013 passed on 30.12.2013 By virtue of that order,
the said C.M.(Main), amongst others, was disposed of by recording that
without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land holders the
cheque tendered in each petition would be treated as tendered to the court
of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi as of that date i.e.
30.12.2013. According to the respondents this amounts to payment of
compensation. However, this issue has already been settled by a decision
of this court in Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. WPC
1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014 wherein this court held that unless and
until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere
deposit of the compensation in court would not be sufficient. The
compensation cannot be regarded as having been paid merely on the
deposit of the same in court unless and until it has first been offered to the
person interested and he has refused to accept the same. In the present
case, it is an admitted position that the compensation amount was
tendered in this court in the said C.M (Main) 1392/2013 without first
being offered to the petitioner herein. Therefore the same, following the
decision in Gyanender Singh (supra), cannot be regarded as
compensation having been paid to the petitioner.
3. In these circumstances, while the question of physical possession is
disputed, it is clear that compensation has not been paid to the petitioner.
The award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of
the 2013 Act. All the ingredients necessary for the applicability of section
24(2) of the 2013 Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this court
in the following decisions, stand satisfied:-
(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3
SCC 183;
(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:
(2014) 6 SCC 564;
(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v.
State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No.
8700/2013
(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others:
WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this
Court; and
(v) Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors:
W.P.(C) 1393/2014.
5. 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 lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 11, 2016
st
