Kalu Ram vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 2304 Del

$~37
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 22.03.2016

+       W.P.(C) 8628/2015 & CM 18762/2015
KALU RAM                                                         .... Petitioner
                                       versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.                                   ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner                     : Mr Lalit Kumar Rawal
For the Respondent L&B/LAC             : Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA                 : Mr Dhanesh Relan with Mr Akshita Manocha



CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. 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.8/1992-93 dated 19.06.1992 was made, inter alia, in respect of

the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 17 (4-12), 18 (3-14), 38

(1-12), 41 (1-16) and 42 (1-10) measuring 13 bighas 4 biswas ( to the

extent of 1/12 share therein) in village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Delhi,

shall be deemed to have lapsed. Apart from this land, the petitioner has

also made a reference to khasra no. 861/639 (1-15). But, as per the

respondents and, particularly, the Land Acquisition Collector, this land

was never be the subject matter of the award. Therefore, the said land

was not the subject matter of acquisition. The petition, therefore, pertains

to the rest of the land.

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

was taken on 21.03.2007, the petitioner disputes this and maintains 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be

no order as to costs.

                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J


MARCH 22, 2016                            SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
kb