Pradeep Singh Chouhan And Ors vs Union Of India & Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 422 Del

$~107
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 24.01.2017

+       W.P.(C) 3224/2016
PRADEEP SINGH CHOUHAN AND ORS                              .... Petitioners
                                       versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                      ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners                    : Ms Meenu Handa
For the Respondent L&B/LAC             : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA                 : Ms Natasha Thakur


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.69/1982-83 was made in 1982, inter alia, in respect of the

petitioners' land, to the extent of their shares, comprised in Khasra Nos.

340 (10-14), 342 (12-14), 343 (16-18), 344(12-11), 345(6-17), 346(13-

05), 349/3 (11-0), 509/350 min (9-0) and 519/341 (7-03) in village Dhir

Pur, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

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

was taken on 06.05.1997, the petitioners dispute this and maintain that

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

compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not been

paid.

3. Without going into the controversy of 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. 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.

4. 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.

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

no order as to costs.

                                          BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J


JANUARY 24, 2017                          ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
kb