Murari Lal & Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 6931 Del

$~46

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                 Judgment delivered on: 15.11.2016
W.P.(C) 3058/2015 & CM 5459/2015

MURARI LAL & ORS.                                               ..... Petitioners

                           versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                          ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners                 : Mr M.P. Bhargava
For the Respondent UOI              : Ms Shiva Lakshmi with Mr Sriram Krishnay and
                                      Mr Ruchir Ranjan Rai
For the Respondent DDA              : Mr Arjun Pant
For the Respondent DMRC             : Mr Pushkar Sood with Mr Satya Prakash Singh
                                      and Ms Akshita Chhatwal
For the Respondent LAC/L&B          : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Mr Sunil Kumar
                                      Jha and Mr Kushal Raj Tater
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
                    JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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.157/1986-87 was made on 19.09.1986. He also states that compensation

has not yet been paid to the petitioners. Therefore, the requirements of

section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have been fulfilled and the petitioners are

entitled to a declaration that the subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has

lapsed. The land in question is situated in village Palam, Delhi, in khasra

No.87//18 (3-03) measuring 3 bighas 3 biswas in all.

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

taken on 14.10.1986, compensation has not been paid to the petitioners. 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

JAYANT NATH, J NOVEMBER 15, 2016 kb