Ranbir Singh Dagar And Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 6154 Del

$~49
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 20.09.2016

+       WP(C) No.7331/2015 & CM 13457/2015


RANBIR SINGH DAGAR AND ORS.                                      .... Petitioners

                                       versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.                                   ..... Respondents


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners                    : Mr Rajiv Kumar Ghawana
For the Respondent LAC                 : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent DDA                 : Mr Dhanesh Relan with Ms Akshita Manocha
                                         and Mr Harshit

CORAM:-

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

                                  JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. 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. 23/1987-88 dated 17.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect

of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos.7 (2-06), 813/251 (2-

13), 258 (1-16) and 457 (6-01) measuring 12 bighas 16 biswas in all in

village Maidan Garhi, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. The stand of the respondents is that possession of khasra 258 min

was taken to the extent of 1 bigha 6 biswas out of 1 bigha 16 biswas.

Therefore, admittedly possession of 10 biswas out of this khasra number

was not taken. In respect of the balance land, the respondents contend

that possession was taken on 16.07.1987 and 12.11.1987. This is,

however, disputed by the petitioners who claim that actual physical

possession of the entire land is with them. Insofar as the question of

compensation is concerned the same has not been paid to the petitioners

as contended by them. But, according to the respondents the same has

been deposited in the treasury.

3. Without going into the controversy with regard to the physical

possession, this much is clear that the Award was made more than five

years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation

has also not been paid to the petitioners, but has only been deposited in

the treasury, which does not amount to payment of compensation as

interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and

Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.

4. All 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) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;

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

(3) Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors:

Civil Appeal No. 5811/2015 decided on 09.09.2016.

(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 20,2016                              ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
kb