Kram Singh @ Bikram Singh @ Jagdish ... vs The Lt. Governor Of Delhi And Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 223 Del

$~29

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Judgment delivered on: 12.01.2016

W.P.(C) 2899/2015 & CM 5958/2015

KRAM SINGH @ BIKRAM SINGH @ JAGDISH AND ANR.
                                                                ..... Petitioners
                             versus

THE LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS.                             ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners        : Mr Rahul Sharma with Mr Parvesh Chaudhary
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent DDA     : 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 counter affidavit handed over by Mr Siddharth Panda on behalf of

respondent nos. 2&3 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as all the necessary

averments are contained in the writ petition.

2. By way of this writ petition 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. The petitioners

seek 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 Award No.25A/70-71 dated 28.03.1980 was made, inter

alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in khasra no. 147

measuring 800 Sq. Yds. in all in village Gazipur, Delhi, shall be deemed to

have lapsed.

3. The case of the petitioners is that neither physical possession of the

said 800 Sq. Yds. of land has been taken by the land acquiring agency nor

has any compensation been paid to the petitioners. On the other hand the

respondents state that the possession of 1 bigha 18 biswas out of khasra no.

147 was taken on 18.04.1980. However, it is also admitted that the

possession of the land to the extent of 10 biswas was not taken. Insofar as

the compensation is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents

contend that the amount was sent to the treasury. That of course does not

amount to any payment of compensation as held by several decisions of this

court. Furthermore, it is also to be noted that in response to an RTI query,

the Tehsildar (LA), District East, Delhi, has clearly, in his response dated

29.04.2008, stated that the compensation has not been paid.

4. From the aforesaid circumstances it is clear that neither physical

possession of the said 800 Sq. Yds has been taken by the land acquiring

agency nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioners. The award

was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act

and therefore all the ingredients 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 decided on 10.09.2014; and

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.:

W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court.

5. 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

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 12, 2016 kb