Sunit Bansal And Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1674 Del

$~26
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 01.03.2016

+       W.P.(C) 1454/2015 and CM No. 2552/2015
SUNIT BANSAL AND ANR.                                                 .... Petitioners
                                       versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                               ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner                     : Mr Raghuvinder Varma
For the Respondents                    : Ms Mrinalini Sen Gupta
                                       : 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 proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which

Award No. 102A/72-73 dated 23.03.1977 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra No. 111/2 (4-04) to the

extent of 150 sq. yards in all in village Pipalthala shall be deemed to have

lapsed.

2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land

was taken on 08.02.1978, the petitioners dispute this and maintain that

physical possession has not been taken. The said 150 sq. yards of land,

however, has not been demarcated in the above khasra number.

However, insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an

admitted position that it has not been paid.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further

submitted that the writ petition ought to be thrown out on the ground that

it has been filed on behalf of subsequent purchasers. The learned counsel

submitted that the petitioners had purchased the land after the issuance of

the notifications under section 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act. He also

submitted that it is settled law that a subsequent purchaser has no right to

challenge the acquisition proceeding and has only a limited right to

receive compensation. He placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision

in the case of KN Aswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr. LRs.& Ors. Vs. State of

Karnataka & Ors. AIR 2014 SC 279. According to the learned counsel,

the Supreme Court held that a person who purchases land subsequent to

the issuance of a notification for acquisition is not competent to challenge

the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever. He

contended that the sale deed executed in favour of the subsequent

purchaser does not confer upon him any title and at the most he could

claim compensation on the basis of the vendors title. A reference was

also made to the Supreme Court decision: Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant

Governor of Delhi and Ors.: (2008) 9 SCC 177.

4. While it is true that, in the context of 1894 Act, the Supreme Court

has held that a subsequent purchaser would not have a right to challenge

the acquisition and would only have a right to compensation, we agree

with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present petition as it

now stands is not a challenge to the acquisition proceedings but a petition

seeking declaration of rights which had accrued to the petitioners by

virtue of the deeming provision of section 24(2) of 2013 Act. Once the

acquisition has lapsed because of the triggering of the deeming provision

of section 24(2) of 2013 Act, the benefit of the same cannot be denied to

the petitioners on the ground that they are subsequent purchasers.

5. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, this

much is clear that the Award was made more than five years prior to the

commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been

paid. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of

the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the

following cases 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) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:

WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.

6. 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 land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

7. 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