Bhagat Singh vs Union Of India & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 7130 Del

$~62

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Judgment delivered on: 28.11.2016

W.P.(C) 7568/2015

BHAGAT SINGH                                                      ..... Petitioner

                            versus


UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                              ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr N. S. Chechi
For the Respondent LAC/L&B : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent DDA       : Ms Shobhana Takiar
For the Respondent UOI       : Mr Rajesh Kumar with Mr Santwana


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

No.205/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 228/1 (2-16), 229 (4-4), 230/1(2-

12), 250 (4-16), 252/2 (2-16), 269/1 (2-0), 270 (4-16) measuring 24 bighas in

all (to the extent of a 1/12th share) in village Kotla Mahigram shall be

deemed to have lapsed.

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

taken on 04.12.1986, 12.12.1996 and 05.03.1997, the petitioner disputes this

and maintains that physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar

as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it

has not been paid.

3. 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.

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

JAYANT NATH, J

NOVEMBER 28, 2016 SR