Sarita Jain vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 3882 Del

$~53

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Judgment delivered on: 23.05.2016
W.P.(C) 3859/2015

SARITA JAIN                                                     ..... Petitioner

                             versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS                                     ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner         : Ms Iti Sharma with Mr Puneet Sharma
For the Respondent LAC/L&B : Mr Siddharth Panda with Mr P. Venkatesan
For the Respondent DDA     : Ms Shobhana Takiar with Mr Udayan Khandelwal

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                    JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this matter is covered

by the decision of this Court in the case of Girish Chhabra vs. Lt. Governor

of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014. He states

that although possession of the subject land has been taken, the award under

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act')

was made more than five years prior to the commencement 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. In this case Award No.14/1992-93 was

made on 19.06.1992. He also states that compensation has not yet been paid

to the petitioner. Therefore, the requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013

Act have been fulfilled and the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the

subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is

situated in Village Kilokri, Delhi, in Khasra No.530/1/2 measuring to the

extent of 1 bigha in all.

2. Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has been

taken on 09.02.2007, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. The

Award is also more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013

Act. Consequently, the decision of this Court in Girish Chhabra (supra)

applies on all fours and the subject acquisition has lapsed.

3. The writ petition is allowed by declaring that the acquisition in respect

of the subject land has lapsed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MAY 23, 2016 kb