Delhi High Court
Santosh Kumar & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 November, 2016
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.11.2016
+ WP(C) No.6763/2014
SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS. .... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Rishi Malhotra with Mr Rajat Roshan Sharma
For the Respondent UOI : Ms Saroj Bidawat
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA :Mr Dhanesh Relan with Ms Isha Garg
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
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 1934-C/1981-82 and is dated
06.02.1981. It is in respect of, inter alia, the petitioners' land comprised
in Khasra Nos. 77/2 (2-06), 78/1 (1-10), 79/2(1-08), 75/2 (4-14), 76 (1-
11), 73/2(1-14), 74/3 (3-12), measuring 16 bighas 15 biswas in village
Molar Band. Admittedly, physical possession of the subject land was
taken on 02.03.1981. The said land is to be utilized for Badarpur
Thermal Power Project. Admittedly, compensation has not been paid to
the petitioners.
3. Although physical possession of the subject land has admittedly
been taken, compensation has not been paid to the petitioners and the
award was 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 physical possession of the land
has been taken and the same is being utilized for the Badarpur Thermal
Power Project, 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 retain 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 the
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. There shall be no
order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
NOVEMBER 09, 2016
kb
