Sanjeev Solanki vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 428 Del

$~84
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                           Judgment delivered on: 24.01.2017

+       W.P.(C) 1999/2015 & CM No.3577/2015
SANJEEV SOLANKI                                                   ...Petitioner
                                        versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS                                ...Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr J.V. Rana
For the Respondent/L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent/DDA       : Mr Himanshu Bajaj, ASC with Ms Sakshi Agrawal

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 Yeeshu Jain on behalf of the

respondent No.2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner

does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as he reiterates the contents of

the writ petition.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking 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. The petitioner,

consequently, seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894

Act') and in respect of which Award No.1/2008-09 dated 30.06.2008 was

made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No.

54/2 measuring 3 bighas 16 biswas in Village Nasirpur shall be deemed to

have lapsed.

3. It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the

subject land has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any

compensation been paid to the petitioner. The award was made more than

five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients of

section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this

Court in the following decisions stand satisfied:-

(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

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

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

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 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

lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

5. While we have declared that the subject acquisition has lapsed, it is

made clear that this would not amount to giving title to the petitioner or

perfecting the petitioner's title inasmuch as Mr Jain has taken the plea in the

counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 that the Gaon Sabha

has been shown as the recorded owner. This fact is disputed by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. But, we are not entering into the controversy of

title which may be sorted out elsewhere. Insofar as the acquisition is

concerned, the same has lapsed because neither physical possession was

taken over nor compensation was paid.

6. A copy of this order be sent to the standing counsel for the

Government of NCT of Delhi so that the appropriate Gaon Sabha, through

the BDO (South-West), can be informed accordingly and, if any necessary

steps are to be taken, the same can be taken.

7. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no

order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J JANUARY 24, 2017 dutt