Delhi High Court
Zikru Rehman Khatri And Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr on 8 March, 2016
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 08.03.2016
+ W.P.(C) 5210/2015 & CM 9459/2015
ZIKRU REHMAN KHATRI AND ORS .... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr D.P.Singh with Mr Aman Mudgal, Ms Nidhi Dalal
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Dhanesh Relan with Mr Arush Bhandari and Ms
Akshita Manocha.
For the Respondent L&B : Mr Siddharth Panda
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Siddharth Panda on
behalf of respondent No.1 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the
petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as he
would be relying 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 initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of the land
in question is deemed to have lapsed. The present petition is concerned
with Award No.14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987, inter alia, in respect of the
petitioners' lands comprised in khasra nos. 741 (5-0), 742 (3-8), 743 (2-
7), 744 (2-10), 745 (4-10), 746 (4-3), 747 (5-8) and 748 (1-13) measuring
28 bighas 19 biswas in all in village Satbari, Delhi.
3. It is the case of the respondents that possession of khasra nos. 741,
746, 747 and 748 was taken on 14.07.1987. However, possession in
respect of the remaining khasra nos. i.e. 742, 743, 744 and 745 could not
be taken. It is, however, the case of the petitioners' that physical
possession of the entire land is with them and that the land acquiring
agency has not taken actual physical possession of the subject land.
4. Insofar as the question of compensation is concerned, the same has
admittedly not been paid to the petitioners but according to the
respondents the same has been deposited in the treasury. Such a deposit,
without any offer having been made to the petitioners would not amount
to payment of compensation as held by the Supreme Court in Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.
5. We need not go into the controversy with regard to physical
possession insofar as some of the khasra nos. are concerned because it is
clear that the Award was made more than five years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act and that compensation has also not been
paid to the petitioners. Thus, all the necessary ingredients for the
application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the
Supreme Court and this Court in, inter alia, 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 which had been initiated under the 1894 Act in
respect of the subject land 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
MARCH 08, 2016 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
kb
