Ved Prakash And Ors vs Union Of India & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 1860 Del

$~77
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 08.03.2016

+       W.P.(C) 8778/2015 & CM 19430/2015
VED PRAKASH AND ORS                                           .... Petitioners
                                       versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                         ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners                    : Mr Sanjay Rathi
For the Respondent UOI                 : Ms Sangita Rai
For the Respondent DDA                 : Mr M.K. Singh
For the Respondent L&B/LAC             : 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 Panda on behalf of

respondent No.2 and 4 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 which

Award No.1/2007-08 dated 06.08.2007 was made, inter alia, in respect of

the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 20//9 (4-16), 19/6 min (2-

8), 10 (4-16), 7 min (0-4), 13//23 min (2-0), 13/23 min (0-7), 24 min (0-

5), 7/11 min (2-0), 7/11 min (0-11) and 11 min (0-13) measuring 18

bighas in all in village Bamnoli, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

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

was taken on 14.09.2007 and 20.05.10, the petitioners dispute this and

maintain that physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar

as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it

has not been paid.

4. 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.

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 land 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


MARCH 08, 2016                            SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
kb