Jagbir Singh vs Lt Governor Of Delhi & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 420 Del

$~50

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Judgment delivered on: 19.01.2016

W.P.(C) 7675/2015

JAGBIR SINGH                                                ..... Petitioner

                            versus

LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS                                   ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  :        Mr N.Prabhakar
For the L&B/LAC     :        Mr Siddharth Panda
For the DDA          :       Ms Shobhana Takiar


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. Mr Siddharth Panda, the learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.2 & 4, has handed over the counter-affidavit on behalf of the said

respondents. The same is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder-affidavit and reiterates the

averments made in the writ petition in response to the said counter-affidavit.

2. 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.08 /80-81 was made

on 09.04.1980. 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 Mehrauli in Khasra No.60/21 min measuring 3 bighas 16

biswas in all.

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

taken on 06.01.1979, 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.

4. 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 19, 2016 'sn'