Mukesh Jain vs Union Of India And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 6374 Del

$~112

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Judgment delivered on: 04.10.2016

+       W.P.(C) 8298/2015

MUKESH JAIN                                              ..... Petitioner

                             versus

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

For the Petitioner           : Ms Richa Oberoi with Mr APS Sehgal
For the Respondent UOI       : Mr Chiranjiv Kumar
For the Respondent L&B       : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent DDA       : Mr Himanshu Rewatkar for Mr Sushil Dutt Salwan


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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.12/1987-88 was

made on 20.05.1987. He also states that compensation has not yet been paid

to the petitioner. Therefore, the requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013

Act have been fulfilled and the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the

subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is

situated in village Neb Sarai, Delhi, in Khasra No. 389 min (1-04) measuring

1 bigha 4 biswas in all.

2. Admittedly, physical possession of the subject land was taken on

05.09.2005. However, as per the petitioner no compensation has been

received in respect of the said land. On the other hand, the learned counsel

for the respondents submit that Statement A is not available and therefore he

would not be in a position to say as to whether compensation has been paid

or not. As a result, it will have to be taken that the statement made by the

petitioner to the effect that no compensation has been paid is correct.

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

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J OCTOBER 04, 2016 kb