Vinod Gugnani & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 4645 Del

$~37

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 19.07.2016

+       W.P.(C) 6649/2015 & CM 12134/2015


VINOD GUGNANI & ANR                                               ... Petitioners

                                        versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                             ... Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:


For the Petitioners                    : Mr L.B. Rai
For the Respondent LAC/L&B             : Mr Siddharth Panda with Mr P. Venkatesan
For the Respondent R-1                 : Mr Mahipal Singh



CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

                             JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. By way of this writ petition the petitioners seek 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. The

petitioners, consequently, seek a declaration that the acquisition

proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter

referred to as the "1894 Act") and in respect of which Award No. 14/87-

88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners'

land, comprised in Khasra Nos. 510 min (3-06) and 513 min (4-16)

measuring 8 bighas and 2 biswas in all, in Village Satbari, New Delhi,

shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. In this case, it has been admitted by the concerned Land

Acquisition Collector that physical possession of the subject land has not

been taken. This is evident from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of

the concerned Land Acquisition Collector. It is, however, contended by

the learned counsel for the respondents that the amount of compensation

in respect of the same was deposited in the treasury, though the same has

not been paid to the land owner nor was it offered to the land owner.

3. That being the position, the question of payment of compensation

will have to be construed in the light of the various decisions rendered by

the Supreme Court and this Court in:-

(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; and

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court.

In Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) it has been held that unless and

until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere

deposit of the compensation amount in a court would not amount to

payment of compensation. This aspect has also been considered in

Gyanender Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others: WP (C)

1393/2014 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.09.2014.

Consequently, the mere deposit in the treasury, without being offered or

tendered to the persons entitled would not ipso facto amount to payment

of compensation.

4. As such, in the present case, neither physical possession of the

subject land has been taken nor has any compensation been paid to the

petitioners. The Award was made more than five years prior to the

coming into force of the 2013 Act.

5. As a result, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the said

acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the

subject lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be

no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

JULY 19, 2016 kb