Satbir Singh Malik & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 5966 Del

$~7

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Judgment delivered on: 14.09.2016
W.P.(C) 8162/2015

SATBIR SINGH MALIK & ORS                                            ..... Petitioners
                              versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                            ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:


For the Petitioners           : Mr O.P. Gehlaut
For the Respondent Nos. 1&2   : Mr Rajesh Kumar, Mr Priyank Khattar and Mr Atul Krishna
For the Respondent DDA        : Mr Arjun Pant
For the Respondent L&B/LAC    : Mr Siddharth Panda



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

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Siddharth Panda on behalf of

the respondent nos. 4 & 5 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and reiterate the

averments already contained in the writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners 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.90/1980-81 was made on 22.12.1980. He also states that compensation

has not yet been paid to the petitioners. Therefore, the requirements of

section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have been fulfilled and the petitioners are

entitled to a declaration that the subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has

lapsed. The land in question is situated in village Masoodpur, Delhi, in

Khasra Nos. 330/93 (4-17), 65 (5-19), 66 (5-01) and 89 (15-03) measuring

31 bighas (to the extent of 1/4th share therein) in all.

3. Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has been

taken on 29.12.1980, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. The

Award is also more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013

Act. Consequently, the decision of this Court in Girish Chhabra (supra)

applies on all fours and the subject acquisition has lapsed.

4. 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 SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 kb