Delhi High Court
Amarjeet Singh And Ors vs Land Acquisition Collector ... on 5 September, 2016
$~70
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 05.09.2016
+ W.P.(C) 3845/2014 & CM Nos.21892-93/2015
AMARJEET SINGH AND ORS .... Petitioners
versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Anuroop P.S.
For the LAC/L&B : Mr Yeeshu Jain.
For the DDA : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The DDA had filed a review application claiming that it was
not made a party to the earlier proceedings. That review application
was allowed on the sole ground that the DDA had not been made a
party and the counsel for the DDA was obviously not heard before the
judgment dated 08.12.2014 was delivered. That is how the matter has
come up before this Bench. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties including the learned counsel for the DDA. The review
petition filed on behalf of the DDA is treated as its counter affidavit.
2. 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. 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. 18/1987-88 dated 05.06.1987
was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in
Khasra Nos. 2206/1046/2/1 (8-00), 2206/1046/2/2 (20-13), 2208/1046
(3-14), 2207/1046/2 (11-10), 2207/1046/2/2 (28-02) and
2207/1046/2/3 (24-16) measuring 96 bighas and 15 biswas in all in
village Tughlaqabad shall be deemed to have lapsed.
3. The respondents claim that possession in respect of 38 bighas
out of the said lands was taken on three separate dates, namely,
06.06.2013, 31.07.2013 and 31.12.2013. In respect of the balance
land, it is an admitted position that possession was not taken.
However, the petitioners maintain that physical possession of the
entire land is with them and it has not been taken over by the land
acquiring agency. Insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, it
is an admitted position that it has not been paid.
4. It is evident that with regard to a substantial portion of the land,
physical possession of the same has admittedly not been taken by the
land acquiring agency. With regard to the balance land, there is a
dispute as to who is in physical possession. But we need not go into
this controversy inasmuch as the award was made more than five
years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and, admittedly,
compensation has 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.
5. 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 land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall
be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SEPTEMBER 05, 2016 ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
ab
