Praveen Kumar Jain vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 3162 Del

$~36
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 02.05.2016

+       W.P.(C) 3132/2015
PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN                                            .... Petitioner
                                       versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                                   ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Ms Iti Sharma
For the Respondents : Mr Dhanesh Relan for the DDA.
                      Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for
                      L&B/LAC.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

W.P.(C) 3132/2015 & CM No.5585/2015(stay)

1. By way of this writ petition, 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.22/2005-06 dated 02.01.2006 was

made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra

No. 54//17 which consists of 4 bighas 13 biswas to the extent of 333.3 sq.

yds. in village Karala, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

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

was taken on 23.02.2007, 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


May 02, 2016                             SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
'sn'