Delhi High Court
Jaipur Marble Stone Corp. vs Lieutenant Governor Of Delhi & Ors on 19 July, 2016
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 19.07.2016
+ WP(C) No.3271/2015
JAIPUR MARBLE STONE CORP. .... Petitioner
versus
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr N. Prabhakar
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Siddharth Panda with Mr P. Venkatesan
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Arjun Pant
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The additional counter-affidavit handed over by Mr Panda on
behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2&4 is taken on record. The learned
counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder-affidavit
and reiterates the contents of the writ petition.
2. 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, which is the subject matter of the
present petition, ought to be deemed to have lapsed in view of Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act.
3. The number of the award is 1/1998-99 (Suppl.) and is dated
06.04.1998. It is in respect of, inter alia, the petitioner's land comprised
in Khasra No.509/26 (0-02) and 509/27 (0-18) measuring 1 bigha in all in
village Ladha Sarai, Delhi. Admittedly, physical possession of the
subject land was taken on 06.04.1998. The said land has been utilized by
the DDA and is to be maintained as part of the green belt.
4. However, insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, the
petitioner's case is that the compensation has neither been offered nor
paid to the petitioner. The stand of the respondents, however, is that the
Statement-A is not traceable and therefore the respondents are not in a
position to specifically state as to whether the compensation has been
paid or not. In these circumstances the averments made by the petitioner
would have to be accepted which in turn would mean that compensation
has not been paid.
5. Although physical possession of the subject land has admittedly
been taken, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and the
award is also made more than five years prior to the commencement of
the 2013 Act. Consequently, all the necessary ingredients of Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court
in the following decisions, 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: 2015 (3) SCC 353;
(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. The inevitable conclusion would be that the acquisition
proceedings would have to be declared as having lapsed. But, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that as the land has already been
utilized, the petitioner is not claiming the return of the land and would be
satisfied, if compensation is given to the petitioner under the 2013 Act.
This is a fair and very reasonable approach adopted on behalf of the
petitioner as it also enables the respondents to retain the land for the
purposes of maintaining the green belt without going through an entirely
new acquisition process. As a result we direct that the compensation be
paid to the petitioner in terms of the 2013 Act and that the same be done
within six months.
7. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There shall be no
order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
JULY 19, 2016
kb
