Delhi High Court
Bharat Singh & Ors. vs Land Acquisition Collector And ... on 24 May, 2016
$~87
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 24.05.2016
W.P.(C) 7607/2015 & CM No.14769/2015
BHARAT SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Inder Singh, Mr Anuroop P.S. and Mr Abhay Verma, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain, Ms Jyoti Tyagi and Mr Anshuman Nayak for
L&B/LAC
Ms Shobhana Takiar with Mr Udayan Khandelwal, Advocates for DDA
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 he has instructions to
drop petitioner nos. 4 and 5. He has handed over an amended memo of
parties. The petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are dropped as petitioners from the
present writ petition. The amended memo of parties is taken on record.
2. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 1 handed over by Mr
Yeeshu Jain is taken on record. In the said counter affidavit, it has been
pointed out that the physical possession of Khasra No. 336/2 (3-11) was
taken on 07.12.1981 and the compensation was also paid. The learned
counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and
relies on the averments already contained in the writ petition. He also
submits that he has instructions to request this court to delete Khasra No.
336/2 (3-11) from the scope of the present petition in view of the averments
made by the Land Acquisition Collector. Consequently, Khasra No. 336/2
(3-11) shall not be part of the present writ petition.
3. By way of this writ petition the petitioners are seeking 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. The petitioners,
consequently, seek a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894
Act') and in respect of which Award No.1934-C/81-82 dated 06.02.1981
was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra
Nos. 342/2 (2-02), 348 (3-04), 349/2 (3-19), 353 (4-16), 354/2 (4-14), 355
(2-15), 381/2 (3-09), 380/2 (1-12), 483 (3-11), 385 (4-09) totalling to 34
bighas and 11 Biswas in Village Mollarband, Delhi shall be deemed to have
lapsed.
4. It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the
subject lands has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any
compensation been paid to the petitioners. The award was made more than
five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients of
section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this
Court in the following decisions stand satisfied:-
(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3
SCC 183;
(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:
(2014) 6 SCC 564;
(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State
of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No.
8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; and
(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.:
W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this
Court.
5. 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
lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
6. 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 24, 2016
rs
