Delhi High Court
Prem Singh & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 December, 2017
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 5th December, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 3304/2016
PREM SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, Mr. Tanveer Zaki,
Mr. Navjot Kumar and Ms. Kulsum
Haider, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Poonam Kalia, SCGC for R1.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for
L&B/LAC.
Mr. Nikhil Goel and Mr. Ashutosh
Ghade, Advs. for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. By the present petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioners seek a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with
respect to the land of the petitioners being 404 Sq. Yds., 101 Sq. Yds. and
200 Sq. Yds. comprised in Khasra No. 554/214 measuring 2 bighas and 12
biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village-Jasola, New Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as 'subject land') are deemed to have lapsed in view
of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (New Act), as
neither possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation has
been paid. In this case, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 was issued on 6th April, 1964, Section 6 notification was issued on
7th December, 1966 and Award bearing no. 6D/SUPP/86-87 was made on
19th September, 1986. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Paras 14
to 20 of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. V. Harak Chand Misiri Mal Solanki
& Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and decisions rendered by this Court from time to
time in support of his submissions. Counsel for the petitioners has also
drawn the attention of the Court to the counter-affidavit filed by the
respondent / LAC, more particularly, Para 6 which reads as under:-
"That as per the Naksha Muntazmin / Statement A, the
answering Respondent submits that the compensation not paid of
Khasra No. 554/214 (2-04) and compensation paid of Khasra
No. 492/234 (3-9)
Name of the Amount Cheque Date
land owners No.
As per Maan Singh 55111.43 535844 29.01.2004
Statement S/o. Bansi
A / Shumar
No. 52 and
Prem Singh 48222.50 535845
S/o. Bansi
Aman Singh 48222.50 535846
S/o. Bansi
Maan Singh 4299331.68 839302
S/o. Bansi
Prem Singh 3798778.32 839303
S/o. Bansi
Aman Singh 3798778.32 839304
S/o. Bansi
2. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court to a
judgment passed by another Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)
8196/2015 titled as Aman Singh v. Union of India and Ors. to show that
acquisition proceedings with respect to 845 Sq. Yds. of land in the same
village, i.e., Jasola and same Khasra Number already stands lapsed.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their
rival submissions. Having regard to the clear stand taken by the LAC that
compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner, the case of the
petitioner fully covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of
India in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.(supra).
4. For the reasons aforestated, we are of the considered view that the
necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the New Act as
has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of India and this Court in the
following cases stand satisfied:
(1) Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at 2014 3 SCC 183;
(2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors., reported at
(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,
W.P.(C).2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors;
W.P.(C).2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
5. In view of the discussion above, the petitioners are entitled to a
declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to subject land are
deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
6. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
DECEMBER 05, 2017/jg
