Diwan Chand And Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2016 Latest Caselaw 1659 Del

$~30
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 01.03.2016

+       W.P.(C) 3901/2015 and CM No. 6967/2015
DIWAN CHAND AND ORS.                                                  .... Petitioners
                                       versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                                       ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners                    : Mr Shridhar Y. Chitale, Adv. with Mr Vivek
                                         R. Mohanty, Ms Shakshi S. Yadav and Mr
                                         Sameer Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondents                    : Ms Mrinalini Sen Gupta and Ms M. Chatterjee,
                                         Advocates for DDA
                                       : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates
                                         for the Respondents/L&B/LAC

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. 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. A declaration is sought to the

effect that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in

respect of which Award No. 5/2008-09 dated 28.11.2008 was made, inter

alia, in respect of the petitioners' land described herein below in village

Najafgarh, Delhi, has lapsed:-

Item Nos. Parties Name Khasra Nos with details

6&7 Diwan Chand (Petitioner No. 1) 42//9/2 (3-04), 10/2 (4-13), 13/1 (1-

9), 8/1 (1-2), 9/1/1 (1-5), 12/2 min (1-14), 43//6/2/1 (2-9), in all 15 Khem Chand (Petitioner No. 2) bigha 16 biswas

13 Hari Prakash (Petitioner No. 3) 42//13/2/2 (3-0), 18/2 min (2-8), in all 5 bigha 8 biswa

14 & 15 Hari Prakash (Petitioner No. 3) 42//17/2 (3-7), in all 3 bigha 7 biswa

Dharambir (Petitioner No. 4)

17, 18 & 19 Diwan Chand (Petitioner No. 1) 42//14/1 (0-19), in all 19 biswa

Khem Chand (Petitioner No. 2)

Hari Prakash (Petitioner No. 3)

42 Dharambir (Petitioner No. 4) 42//19/1/1 (0-07), 23/1/1 (1-00), 18/2 min (0-19), in all 2 bigha 06 biswa

44 Dharambir (Petitioner No. 4) 42//19/2/1 (0-12), in all 12 biswa

45 Dharambir (Petitioner No. 4) 42//24/1/1 (3-16), in all 3 bigha 16 biswa

54 Dharambir (Petitioner No. 4) 49//4/1 (1-09), in all 1 bigha 9 biswa

56, 57, 58 Parasram (Petitioner No. 5) 50//12/2 min (0-14), 49//5 min (1-00), 6/1 (3-7), 50//1/1-2min & 59 Ram Singh (Petitioner No. 6) (1-01), in all 6 bigha 2 biswa Dharmendra (Petitioner No. 7)

Devendra Vashesar (Petitioner No. 8)

62, 63, 64, Parasram (Petitioner No. 5) 50//1/2/1 (2-05), 9/1/1 (0-13), 10

65 & 66 Ram Singh (Petitioner No. 6) (4-16), 11/1 min (3-06), in all 11

bigha Dharmendra (Petitioner No. 7)

Devendra (Petitioner No. 8)

Phoolwati (Petitioner No. 9)

2. It is claimed by the petitioners that the physical possession of the

subject land had not been taken by the land acquiring agency. On the

other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the

possession was taken on 23.11.2012. It is, therefore, clear that the issue

with regard to the physical possession can be stated to be disputed. As

regards the compensation, it has been contended on behalf of the

respondents that the same was deposited in the Court of the learned Addl.

District Judge on 27.12.2013. However, the learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that no compensation whatsoever has been received

by the petitioners and such deposit in the Court of the learned Addl.

District Judge would not amount to payment of compensation as

compensation had not been offered to the petitioners prior to such alleged

deposit.

3. This issue has already been settled by a decision of this Court in

Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No.

1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014 wherein this Court held that unless and

until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere

deposit of the compensation in Court would not be sufficient. The

compensation cannot be regarded as having been paid merely on the

deposit of the same in Court unless and until it has first been offered to

the person interested and he has refused to accept the same. In the present

case, it is an admitted position that the compensation amount was

tendered in the Court without first being offered to the petitioners herein.

Therefore, the same, following the decision in Gyanender Singh (supra),

cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioners.

4. In these circumstances, while the question of physical possession

is disputed, it is clear that compensation has not been paid to the

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

commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients necessary for the

applicability 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: 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; and

(5) Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors:

WP(C) 1393/2014.

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

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MARCH 01, 2016 rs