Sudarshan Kapoor vs Union Of Inia And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1864 Del

$~56

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

+       WP(C) No.9011/2015 & CM 20363/2015

SUDARSHAN KAPOOR                                                     .... Petitioner

                                       versus

UNION OF INIA AND ORS                                                ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner                     :        Ms Richa Oberoi
For the Respondent DDA                 :        Mr Pawan Mathur
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 the

respondent no. 2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner

does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and reiterates the contents of

the writ petition.

2. The petitioner seeks 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.14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 684 (5-4), 685 (4-16)

and 686 (4-16) measuring 14 bighas 16 biswas in all in village Satbari,

New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said

land was taken on 01.08.2013. This is disputed by the petitioner, who

claims to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.

4. As regards the question of compensation, the same has not been

paid to the petitioner but, according to the respondents, the same has been

deposited in the treasury. Mere deposit of the compensation amount in

the treasury does not amount to payment of compensation without the

same having been offered to the petitioner. This is clear from the

decision of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr

v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183. As such

it is clear that without going into the controversy with regard to physical

possession, the award was made more than five years prior to the

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

to the petitioner.

5. 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 the

following cases stand satisfied:-

(1) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(3) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(4) 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 petitioner is 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 08, 2016 kb