Delhi High Court
Surender Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 21 July, 2016
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 21.07.2016
+ W.P.(C) 3591/2015 & CM 6397/2015
SURENDER SINGH .... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms Smita Maan with Mr Vishal Maan
For the Respondent Nos.1-2 : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Mrs Kaomudi Kiran
Pathak, Mr Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr Kushal Raj Tater
For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr Pawan Mathur
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. Mr Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2, states that the counter-affidavit has been filed
but the same has not been placed on record. We direct the Registry to
place the same on record. We have seen a copy of the counter-affidavit.
The rejoinder/affidavit has already been filed by the counsel for the
petitioner.
2. In this petition 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. It is the case of the
petitioner that the acquisition proceedings, which were initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act')
have lapsed because the ingredients of the provisions of Section 24(2) of
the 2013 Act stand satisfied. The acquisition proceedings under the 1894
Act resulted in Award No. 1/2007-08 dated 06.08.2007 and this was in
respect of, inter alia, the petitioner's land in khasra Nos. 5//24(4-0),
25/1(1-09) and 35//5 min 1 (0-16) measuring 6 bighas and 5 biswas in all
in village Bamnoli. To be clear, the petitioner claims a 1/4th share in the
first two khasra numbers and a full share in the last of the three khasra
numbers mentioned above.
3. Insofar as khasra Nos. 5//24 and 25/1 are concerned, the position
that obtained is that while the petitioner claims that physical possession is
with the petitioner, the respondents, on the other hand, claim that physical
possession was taken on 14.09.2007. Therefore, the issue with regard to
possession remains disputed. Insofar as the issue of compensation is
concerned, admittedly, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner
in respect of these two khasra numbers.
4. With regard to khasra No. 35//5 min 1, admittedly, physical
possession has not been taken from the petitioner and the same is with the
petitioner. Compensation has also not been paid to the petitioner, as
admitted by the respondents.
5. Insofar as khasra Nos. 5//24 and 25/1 are concerned, the position is
clear that compensation has not been paid and that possession is disputed.
The Award was also made more than five years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act. In the case of khasra No. 35//5 min 1,
neither possession has been taken nor has compensation been paid, as
indicated above. The Award, obviously, is more than five years prior to
the commencement of the 2013 Act. Thus, in respect of the 1/4 th share of
the petitioner in the khasra Nos. 5//24 and 25/1 and the full share in
khasra No. 35//5 min 1, the acquisition under the 1894 Act is deemed to
have lapsed in view of the following decisions:-
(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: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013
decided on 10.09.2014;
(4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C)
2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court;
6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
JULY 21, 2016 V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SR
