Delhi High Court
Subhash Chander Sehgal And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 1 March, 2016
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 01.03.2016
+ W.P.(C) 1648/2015 & CM No. 2959/2015
SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL AND ORS. .... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr S.K. Rout and Mr Pawan Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for L&B/LAC
Mr Mini Pushkarna, Standing Counsel for R-2/East Delhi Municipal
Corporation
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The counter affidavits handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain on behalf of
respondent No.1 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners
does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and places reliance on the
averments made in the writ petition.
2. 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, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition,
ought to be deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
3. The Award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the 1894 Act') was made vide Award No.102/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986
and it was in respect of, inter alia, the petitioners' land comprised in property
bearing No. E-1/14, Krishna Nagar, admeasuring 236.1/9 sq. yards in village
Ghondali, Delhi.
4. It is an admitted position that the physical possession of the subject land
was taken on 13.02.1987. It is also an admitted position that the subject land
was utilized for a park by East Delhi Municipal Corporation. In so far as the
compensation is concerned, the same has not been paid. This is because the
learned counsel for the petitioner has averred that the compensation has not
been paid and the same could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the
LAC, in as much as the Naksha Muntazamin was in a torn condition. Since
there is no contrary evidence to the averment made by the petitioners, it will
have to be taken as if the compensation has not been paid.
5. Although the physical possession of the subject land has admittedly been
taken, compensation has not been paid to the petitioners and the award is also
more than five year prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Therefore, 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: 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. Thus, it would have to be declared that the acquisition proceedings have
lapsed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners states, on instructions,
that since the land has already been utilized, he is not claiming the return of the
land and is only interested in compensation under the 2013 Act. We feel that
this is a very fair and reasonable approach adopted on behalf of the petitioners
and therefore, we direct that the compensation be paid to the petitioners in terms
of the 2013 Act. The same be done within six months.
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
