Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Delhi Development Authority & ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4156 Del

$~14(Category-III)

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 30.05.2016

+       W.P.(C) 1399/2014 & CM Nos. 2913/2014, 20924/2015
SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA                                           .... Petitioner
                                       versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.                           ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner  : Mr Jasbir Singh Malik
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B.
                      Mr Ajay Verma, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr Vaibhav
                      Mishra, Advocates for DDA.
                      Ms Rashmi Chopra and Ms Asiya, Advocates for R-5
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is 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. 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. 35/81-82 dated 10.11.1981 was

made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra

Nos. 70/22(4-16), 70/23 (4-16) measuring 9 bighas 12 biswas in all in

village Badli shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land

was taken on 12.11.81, the petitioner disputed this and maintained that

physical possession has not been taken. But, from the decision in RSA

No. 124/2009 dated 10.03.2011, it is clear that physical possession of the

land in question was taken on 12.03.1981. However, insofar as the issue

of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not

been paid.

3. Thus, although physical possession of the land in question has been

taken, 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. 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) 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: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(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. As a result, the petitioner is 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.

5. 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 30, 2016 rs