Delhi High Court
Udai Pal Singh And Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 4 October, 2016
$~108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.10.2016
+ W.P.(C) 5226/2015
UDAI PAL SINGH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr V.S. Tomar
For the Respondents L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Arun Birbal with Mr Sanjay Singh
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. By way of this writ petition 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. Initially, the
petitioners had filed this petition in respect of khasra nos. 1255/4, 1267 and
1279 in village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, Delhi, in connection with award
no. 02/1998-99 in respect of the said first two khasras and award no.
146/1980-81 in respect of the last khasra number. However, the learned
counsel for the petitioners has given up the petition insofar as khasra no.
1279 is concerned. In other words, we are left to consider the petition in the
context of khasra no. 1255/4 (0-½) to the extent of ¼ share and khasra no.
1267 (0-½) to the extent of ¼ share.
2. Insofar as khasra no. 1255/4 is concerned, it is the case of the
respondents that possession has been taken on 31.12.2013, however,
compensation has not been paid. With regard to khasra no. 1267 the stand of
the respondents is that neither possession has been taken nor compensation
has been paid. On the part of the petitioners their clear stand is that neither
possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid or received by
them in respect of both the khasra nos. As a result the position which
emerges is that with regard compensation it is admitted that the same has not
been paid in respect of both the khasra nos. However, with regard to
possession, it is disputed insofar as khasra no. 1255/4 is concerned but,
admittedly, it has not been taken with regard to khasra no. 1267.
3. Since the award was made on 07.01.1999 it is clearly more than five
years prior to the coming into effect of the 2013 Act. All the necessary
ingredients for application of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are satisfied in
view of the various decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court as under:-
(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3
SCC 183;
(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:
(2014) 6 SCC 564;
(iii) Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh &
Ors: Civil Appeal No. 5811/2015 decided on
09.09.2016;
(iv) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State
of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No.
8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; and
(v) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.:
W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this
Court.
4. As a result the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the said
acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject
lands 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
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
OCTOBER 04, 2016
kb
