Puneet Lakra And Anr vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 224 Del

$~19

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Judgment delivered on: 12.01.2016
W.P.(C) 9327/2014 & CM 21120/2014

PUNEET LAKRA AND ANR                                         ..... Petitioners

                             versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR                                ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners                    : Mr P. Chakraborty
For the Respondent L&B/LAC             : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent nos. 4to6           : Mr Y.R. Sharma

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 state 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.16/2005-06 was made on 14.09.2005. 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 Mubarakpur Dabas, Delhi, in khasra nos. 30//19 (0-18) and 30//20 (0-02) measuring 1 bighas in all.

2. Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has been taken on 04.04.2006, 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 12, 2016 kb