Shiv Raj vs Union Of India And Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 6153 Del

$~54
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 20.09.2016

+       W.P.(C) 8081/2015 & CM 16716/2015

SHIV RAJ                                                       .... Petitioner
                                       versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                                        ..... Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner           : Mr Raj Bahadur Singh with Mr Vinod Singh, Mr Arun
                               Kaushik and Ms Tanika
For the Respondent UOI       : Mr Chiranjiv Kumar with Mr Mukesh Sachdeva
For the Respondent DDA       : Mr Apoorv Rastogi for Mr Sunil Dutt Salwan


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

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks 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.15/1992-93 dated 19.06.92 was made, inter alia, in respect of

the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 151/149-150/33 min (1-0)

and 34/1 min (0-03) measuring 1 bigha 3 biswas in all in village

Behlolpur Khadar, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land

was taken on 21.04.2006, the petitioner disputes this and maintains that

physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar as the issue of

compensation is concerned, while it is admitted by the respondents that

no compensation has been paid in respect of khasra nos. 151/149-150/33

min, compensation was paid to one Zile Singh in respect of 8 biswas of

land comprised in khasra no. 34. But, the learned counsel for the

petitioner contends that no compensation was paid to Narayan Singh who

is the brother of the Zile Singh. Narayan Singh owns only 3 biswas of

land in khasra no. 34/1 min which was purchased by one Mirza Javed

Beg from whom the present petitioner derives title. From the narration of

these facts it is clear that no compensation has been paid in respect of the

3 biswas of land falling in khasra no. 34/1 min which the petitioner is

claiming in the present petition.

3. Consequently, as the award was made more than five years prior to

the commencement of the 2013 Act, even if we do not go into the

controversy of physical possession, since 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) Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors:

Civil Appeal No. 5811/2015 decided on 09.09.2016.

(5) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(6) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:

WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.

4. As a result, the petitioner is 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.

5. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be

no order as to costs.

                                         BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J



SEPTEMBER 20,2016                           ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
kb