Delhi High Court
Jagwant Singh And Ors vs Land Acquisition ... on 3 May, 2016
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 03.05.2016
+ WP(C) No.4866/2015 & CM 8798/2015
JAGWANT SINGH AND ORS .... Petitioners
versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR(SOUTH) AND ANR.... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Sukhbir Sejwal
For the Respondent LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. 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.23/1987-88 dated 17.6.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of
the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra No.515 min (3-0) measuring 3
bighas in all in village Maidan Garhi, New Delhi, shall be deemed to
have lapsed.
2. The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said
land was taken on 16.07.1987. This is disputed by the petitioners, who
claim to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.
3. With regard to the question of compensation, it is an admitted
position that the same has not been paid to the petitioners although
according to the respondents the same has been deposited in the treasury.
4. Without going into the controversy with regard to the 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 to the petitioner, but has only been deposited in the
treasury, which does not amount to payment of compensation as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and
Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.
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 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.
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
MAY 03, 2016
kb
