Delhi High Court
Dhrub Kumar Gupta vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 12 January, 2016
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 12.01.2016
+ W.P.(C) 377/2015
DHRUB KUMAR GUPTA .... Petitioner
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Yog Verdhan with A.R. of the petitioner Shri
Sadashir Gupta.
For the Respondent/L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent/DDA : Ms Mrinalini Gupta and Ms Mrinmoi Chatterjee
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 377/2015 & CM No.624 /2015(stay)
1. Mr B.S.Maan had filed this petition on behalf of the petitioner.
However, there has been change in the counsel, therefore, Mr Maan
stands discharged in this case.
2. The counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.2/LAC
(South) has been handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain. The same is taken on
record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any
rejoinder-affidavit inasmuch as all the necessary averments are already
contained in the writ petition.
3. 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. A declaration is sought to the
effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which
Award No.83/82-83 dated 25.03.1983 was made, inter alia, in respect of
the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 748(6-01), 753 min (9-19)
and 754 (6-12) measuring 22 bighas 12 biswas in all in village Mehrauli,
shall be deemed to have lapsed.
4. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land
was taken on 14.03.1997 and 01.07.2004, the petitioner disputes this and
maintains that physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar
as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is admitted by the learned
counsel for the Land Acquisition Collector that the same has not been
paid to the petitioner.
5. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, this
much is clear that the Award was made more than five years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been
paid. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of
the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the
following cases stand satisfied:-
(1) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;
(2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6
SCC 564;
(3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013
decided on 10.09.2014;
(4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C)
2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:
WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
6. 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 land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
7. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
JANUARY 12, 2016 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
'sn'
