Ajay Singh & Anr vs The Honble Lt. Governor, Delhi & ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 550 Del

$~32

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Judgment delivered on: 25.01.2016


W.P.(C) 2746/2015

AJAY SINGH & ANR                                                   ..... Petitioners

                             versus

THE HONBLE LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI & ORS                               ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners                    : Mr Dhruv Sharma
For the Respondents L&B/LAC            : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA                 : Ms Mrinalini Gupta with Ms Mrinmoi Chatterjee



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.80E/1970-71 was

made on 09.01.1981. 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 Mehrauli, Delhi, in khasra nos.2322/1236 min to the

extent of 2 bighas in all.

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

taken on 19.06.1996, 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 25, 2016 kb