Saroj Bala Jain vs Union Of India & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 4160 Del

$~25
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 30.05.2016

+       W.P.(C) 6812/2015 & CM No. 12465/2015


SAROJ BALA JAIN                                               .... Petitioner
                                       versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                         ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Sanjay Rahti and Mr Ajay Choudhary, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Panel Counsel, Mr Pradeep Jha, Govt.
                      Pleader and Ms Santwana, Adv. For UOI/R-1
                      Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for
                      respondent L&B/LAC.
                      Mr S.R. Sharma, Advocate for DDA
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.4 has been

handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain. The same is taken on record. The

learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder

affidavit inasmuch as he would be relying on the averments made in the

writ petition.

2. The petitioner seeks 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.22/2005-06 dated 02.01.2006 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 54/17(4-13), 54/16 (4-

16) and 54/26(0-03) measuring 9 bigha 12 biswas in all in Village

Karala, Delhi shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. The respondents claim that possession of 4 bighas and 13 biswas

out of Khasra No. 54//16 (min), 4 bighas and 12 biswas out of Khasra No.

54//17 (min) and 3 biswas out of Khasra No. 54//26 (min) had been taken

on 23.02.2007 with the help of demolition squad but, possession of the

balance portion of land could not be taken. The petitioner disputes this

and maintains that the physical possession of the entire land is with them.

However, insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an

admitted position that it has neither been offered nor paid to petitioner.

4. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, 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.

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 land 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


MAY 30, 2016                              SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
rs