Delhi High Court
Krishan Jit Sanger vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 May, 2016
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 02.05.2016
+ W.P.(C) 6401/2015
KRISHAN JIT SANGER .... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr N.P.Sahni
For the Respondents : Mr Pawan Mathur with Mr Himanshu Gupta, Advocates for
respondent No.2
Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for
L&B/LAC.
Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocate for Union of India.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 6401/2015 & CM No.11667/2015(stay)
1. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.4 handed over by
Mr Yeeshu Jain 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 in response to the said counter-affidavit.
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.20/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of
the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No. 495 measuring 5 bighas 17
biswas in village Khirkee, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
3. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land
was taken on 17.07.1987, 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.
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 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.
6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
May 02, 2016 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
'sn'
