M/S Band Box Private Ltd vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 556 Del

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                  Judgment delivered on: 25.01.2016

W.P.(C) 1382/2014 & CM 2884/14, 21124/15, 25705/15 & 29996/15

M/S BAND BOX PRIVATE LTD                                          ..... Petitioner
                             versus

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR                                ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners                    : Mr Sumant Bhardwaj
For Respondent No.1/GNCTD              : Mr Arjun Mitra for R-1
For the Respondent L&B/LAC             : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent DDA                 : Mr Dhanesh Relan

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 petitioner states that this matter is covered

by the decision of this Court in the case of Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor

of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that although the 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. The Award No.1820/1963-64 was made as far back as on

21.04.1965. He states that the compensation has still not been paid to the

petitioner despite the passage of 50 years since the date of the Award. He

also states that the entire land has not been put to use by the respondents and

only a part of the land has been utilized.

3. It was, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that 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. In the present case, the land in question is

situated in village Bahapur, Delhi in khasra No. 224 (6-19) measuring 6

bighas and 19 biswas in all.

4. It is the case of the respondents that physical possession of the entire 6

bighas and 19 biswas of land was taken on 01.09.2000. We may note at this

juncture that even this was done after 35 years of the passing of the Award.

Insofar as the compensation is concerned, it is submitted by the learned

counsel for the respondents that the same was deposited in the Court of the

learned Additional District Judge on 19.05.2014. It is stated in the affidavit

filed on behalf of the DDA that out of 6 bighas and 19 biswas of land, which

was acquired, only 1 bigha and 16 biswas of land have been put to use. The

balance 5 bighas and 3 biswas of land are lying vacant. According to the

learned counsel for the respondents, the acquisition is complete and,

therefore, no interference is called for by this Court.

5. With regard to the issue of compensation, it is clear that the same was

not offered to the petitioner and it has been deposited in the Court of the

Additional District Judge on 19.05.2014 which is after the commencement of

the 2013 Act which came into effect on 01.01.2014. In other words, as on

01.01.2014, no compensation had either been offered to the petitioner or

deposited in Court. The date of lapsing of the acquisition would be

01.01.2014. On that date, clearly, there was no deposit of compensation

before the learned Additional District Judge. Therefore, it is clear that

compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. Thus, although physical

possession of the subject land had been taken, compensation had not been

paid to the petitioner and the Award was also more than five years prior to

the commencement of the 2013 Act.

6. Consequently, the decision of this Court in Girish Chhabra (supra)

would apply on all fours and it would have to be declared that the subject

acquisition has lapsed.

7. The writ petition is allowed by declaring that the acquisition in respect

of the subject land has lapsed.

8. There is, however, an issue with regard to one bigha and 16 biswas of

land which has already been utilized by the respondents. Insofar as the land

to that extent is concerned, although the acquisition has lapsed, the

respondents would have two options available to them. The first option

would be to retain possession of 1 bigha and 16 biswas of land and also to

initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in respect thereof within a period of six

weeks under the provisions of the 2013 Act. The other option would be to

offer compensation to the petitioner for the said 1 bigha and 16 biswas of

land in terms of the 2013 Act and thereby legitimately retain possession of

the said 1 bigha and 16 biswas of land. If second option is taken, the learned

counsel for the petitioner has stated, on instructions, that he would be

agreeable to the same. The second option would also have to be exercised

within the said period of six weeks.

9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. The parties are left

to bear their own costs.

Dasti.

                                          BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



JANUARY 25, 2016                             SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR