Radha Nagpal & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 3475 Del

$~27
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 10.05.2016

+       W.P.(C) 384/2015 & CM No.633/2015 (stay)
RADHA NAGPAL & ANR.                                           ..... Petitioners
                             versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                          ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners :        Mr N.S. Vasisht, Advocate.
For the Respondents :        Mr Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr T.P. Singh,
                             Advocates for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
                             Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for respondent No.3.
                             Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for
                             respondent Nos.4 & 5.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. Mr Yeeshu Jain has handed over a counter affidavit on behalf of

the respondent No.5, which is taken on record. The learned counsel for

the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and reiterates

the contents of the writ petition.

2. In the present petition, the petitioners seek the quashing of the

acquisition in respect of their lands. The acquisition proceeding was

initiated by a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said notification was

issued on 05.11.1980. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6

dated 06.06.1985. It may be relevant to point out that the Section 6

declaration was issued beyond the period of one year after the notification

under Section 4 because there was a stay which was in operation during

part of the intervening period.

3. The petitioners had challenged the acquisition by way of a writ

petition being CWP 838/1986. In that writ petition, this Court had

granted a stay insofar as the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra

Nos.374(4-16) and 377(4-16) measuring 9 Bighas and 12 Biswas in all in

Village Khanpur was concerned. Because of the stay, the Award

No.17/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 did not include the petitioners' said land.

This fact is also admitted by the respondent No.5 in paragraph 4 of the

counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.5.

4. CWP 838/1986 was dismissed by this Court in 2005. The

petitioners, being aggrieved, went to the Supreme Court in appeal which

was also dismissed in 2010. Thereafter, there has been no order of stay in

operation which could have prevented the respondents from making the

award in respect of the petitioners' said land.

5. It is in this backdrop that the learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that by virtue of Section 11A of the said Act, the Land

Acquisition Collector was bound to make an award within two years

(excluding the period when the stay order was in operation) from the date

of publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the said Act, failing

which, the acquisition insofar as the petitioners' lands were concerned,

would lapse. About six years have elapsed since the dismissal of the

appeal by the Supreme Court and this is certainly in excess of the two

years period that is stipulated in Section 11A.

6. Consequently, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the

petitioners' said land has lapsed.

7. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                           BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J


MAY 10, 2016                               SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
st