Delhi High Court
Harinder Kaushik vs Union Of India And Others on 24 January, 2017
$~100
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24.01.2017
+ W.P.(C) 9629/2015 & CM 22836/2015
HARINDER KAUSHIK ... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Amiet Andlay
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr Nawal Kishore Jha
For the Respondent No.2 : Ms Mrinalini Sen with Ms Kritika Gupta
For the Respondent No.3 : Mr Siddharth Panda
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. Mr Siddharth Panda has handed over the counter affidavit on
behalf of the respondent No.3. The same is taken on record. The learned
counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and
reiterates the contents of the writ petition.
2. By way of this writ petition 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. 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. 14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the
petitioner's land, comprised in Khasra No. 1066 measuring 5 bighas and
4 biswas in village Satbari, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
3. In this case, it has been admitted by the concerned Land
Acquisition Collector that physical possession of the subject land has not
been taken. This is evident from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of
the concerned Land Acquisition Collector. It is, however, contended by
the learned counsel for the respondents that the amount of compensation
in respect of the same was deposited in the treasury, though the same has
not been paid to the land owner nor was it offered to the land owner.
4. That being the position, the question of payment of compensation
will have to be construed in the light of the various decisions rendered by
the Supreme Court and this Court in:-
(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.
In Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) it has been held that unless and
until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere
deposit of the compensation amount in a court would not amount to
payment of compensation. This aspect has also been considered in
Gyanender Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others: WP (C)
1393/2014 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.09.2014.
Consequently, the mere deposit in the treasury, without being offered or
tendered to the persons entitled would not ipso facto amount to payment
of compensation.
5. As such, in the present case, neither physical possession of the
subject land has been taken nor has any compensation been paid to the
petitioner. The Award was made more than five years prior to the coming
into force of the 2013 Act.
6. 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.
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
SR
