Shri Subhash Chander Sachdeva And ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 6378 Del

$~119

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 04.10.2016

+       W.P.(C) 9014/2015


SHRI SUBHASH CHANDER SACHDEVA AND ORS ... Petitioners

                                        versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                          ... Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners                : Mr N.S. Vasisht with Mr M.P. Bhargava
                                     and Ms Jyoti Kataria, S.C. Sachdeva
For the Petitioner in WPC 8984/2015: Mr Ravi Gupta with Mr P. Choudhary
For the Respondent UOI             : Mr Rajesh Kumar with Ms Santwana
For the Respondent DDA             : Mr Pawan Mathur
For the Respondent L&B/LAC         : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi


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. The

petitioners, consequently, seek a declaration that the acquisition

proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter

referred to as the "1894 Act") and in respect of which Award Nos.

32/1981-82 and 110/1986-87 dated 07.11.1981 and 19.09.1986,

respectively were made, inter alia, in respect of the land comprised in

khasra nos. 206/2 (5-16), 207/2 (6-02), 208/2 (2-02), 209 (4-07), 210/2

(11-16) and 211/2 (0-17) measuring 311 bighas in all, in village Basai

Darapur, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. In this case, it has been admitted by the concerned Land

Acquisition Collector that physical possession of the subject land has not

been taken. This is evident from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of

the concerned Land Acquisition Collector. It is, however, contended by

the learned counsel for the respondents that the amount of compensation

in respect of the same was deposited in the treasury, though the same has

not been paid to the land owners nor was it offered to the land owners.

3. That being the position, the question of payment of compensation

Corrected by order dated 15.11.2016.

will have to be construed in the light of various decisions rendered by the

Supreme Court and this Court in:-

(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) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; and

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court.

In Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), it has been held that unless and

until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere

deposit of compensation amount in a court would not amount to payment

of compensation. This aspect has also been considered in Gyanender

Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others: WP (C) 1393/2014 decided

by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.09.2014. The same would be the

position in respect of a deposit in the treasury.

4. As such, in the present case, neither physical possession of the

subject land has been taken by the land acquiring agency nor have they

paid compensation to the land owners. According to the respondents, the

same could not be done because of the stay operating till 15.04.2004 in

W.P.(C) 2677/1981 and W.P.(C) 697/1983 on which date the acquisition

itself was quashed. However this aspect of the matter was considered in

Jagjit Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 2806/2004 and

other connected matters which were decided by this court on 27.05.2014.

The same has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Govt. of NCT of

Delhi and Ors. v. Jagjit Singh and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2592/2015

decided on 27.02.2015. Therefore, the stay would, in any case, not

operate in favour of the respondents in view of the said decisions. In any

event, there was no stay from 2004 till the date on which the 2013 Act

came into effect i.e., on 01.01.2014. Therefore, this plea is not available

to the respondents even on facts. The award was made clearly more than

five years prior to 01.01.2004.

5. We may point out at this juncture that there is a title dispute

between the petitioners on the one hand, and Jhang Biradari Housing

Residents Society (petitioners in W.P.(C) 8964/2015), which is pending

before this court. The title dispute as also the dispute with regard to the

possession between these parties is pending in CS(OS) 1449/2011.

However, that suit has now been transferred to the district court at Tis

Hazari. We are making it clear that the present writ petition has only

been examined from the stand point of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and

no decision by us can be or is being rendered with regard to either title or

possession insofar as the inter se dispute between the petitioners herein

and the said society is concerned. That is the subject matter of the suit

pending before the district court.

6. It is, however, declared that the acquisition in respect of the subject

land initiated under the 1894 Act is deemed to have lapsed. It is so

declared.

7. 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