Yog Raj vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 6935 Del

$~61
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 15.11.2016

+       W.P.(C) 6284/2015
YOG RAJ                                                          .... Petitioner
                                       versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.                                   ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner                     : Mr V.S. Tomar
For the Respondent UOI                 : Mr Rajesh Kumar
For the Respondent LAC/L&B             : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Mr Sunil Kumar
                                         Jha and Mr Kushal Raj Tater
For the Respondent DDA                 : Mr Dhanesh Relan with Ms Isha Garg

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. 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 Nos.2/1998-99/SW dated 07.01.1999 and 7/1998-99/SW dated

21.06.1999 were made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land

comprised in Khasra No. 1077 (0-14) (under Award No. 2/1998-99/SW)

and khasra nos. 754/1/1 (1-0) and 761 (0-07) ( under Award No. 7/1998-

99/SW) measuring 2 bighas 1 biswa in all in village Malikpur Kohi @

Rangpuri, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. The respondents claim that possession in respect of the lands

falling in khasra nos. 754/1/1 and 761 were taken possession on

31.12.2013. The petitioner, however, disputes this and maintains that

physical possession has not been taken in respect of these lands. As

regards khasra no. 1077 it is an admitted position that physical possession

of the same has not been taken by the land acquiring agency and is with

the petitioner. As regards compensation it is admitted that the same has

not been paid to the land owner.

3. Without going into the controversy of physical possession of

khasra nos. 754/1/1 and 761, it is absolutely clear that the awards were

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


NOVEMBER 15, 2016                        JAYANT NATH, J
kb