Delhi High Court
Mohd. Jameel And Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 17 May, 2016
$~74
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17.05.2016
+ CM 14399/2015, 15575/2016 in W.P.(C) 7522/2015
MOHD. JAMEEL AND ORS .... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Puneet Sharma
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal
For the Respondent Applicant : Devesh Singh
(CM No. 15575/2016)
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, which is the subject- matter of the
present petition, ought to be deemed to have lapsed in view of the Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act.
2. The number of the award is 14/1992-93 and is dated 19.06.1992. It
is in respect of, inter alia, the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra No.
482/1 (1-12) measuring 1 bigha 12 biswas in village Kilokari, Delhi.
Although, physical possession of the subject land is disputed, the said
land is to be utilized for construction of an elevated road over Barapulah
Nallah starting from Sarai Kale Khan to Mayur Vihar, New Delhi (Phase-
III). Admittedly, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner.
3. The award was also made more than five years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act. Consequently, all the necessary
ingredients of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as interpreted by the
Supreme Court and this Court in the following decisions, 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: 2015 (3) SCC 353;
(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. The inevitable conclusion would be that the acquisition
proceedings would have to be declared as having lapsed. But, the learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that as the land is being utilized for a
public purpose, the petitioners are not claiming the "return" of the land
and would be satisfied, if compensation is given to the petitioners under
the 2013 Act. This is a fair and very reasonable approach adopted on
behalf of the petitioners. It also enables the respondents to utilize the
land for the purpose for which it was sought to have been acquired
without going through an entirely new acquisition process. Therefore, we
direct that compensation be paid to the petitioners in terms of the 2013
Act. The same be done within six months.
5. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. All the pending
applications stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. The next date of hearing of 23.05.2016 earlier fixed in this writ
petition stands cancelled.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MAY 17, 2016
kb
