Rameshwar Singh Tanwar & Others vs Union Of India & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 433 Del

$~83
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                           Judgment delivered on: 24.01.2017

+       W.P.(C) 1442/2015 & CM No.2536/2015

RAMESHWAR SINGH TANWAR & OTHERS                                   ...      Petitioners

                             versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                                         ...      Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:-
For the Petitioners          : Mr S.K. Rout with Mr Pawan Kumar
For the Respondents          : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi for L&B/LAC
For the Respondent/DDA       : Mr Dhanesh Relan with Ms Isha Garg


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.1 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners

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

writ petition.

2. By way of this writ petition the petitioners are 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 petitioners,

consequently, seek 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.1717/1964 dated 20.07.1964 was

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

2341 measuring 4 bighas 14 biswas in Village Basai Dara Pur shall be

deemed to have lapsed.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition

Collector, it is admitted that the physical possession of the land was not

taken. On the other hand, the counsel for the DDA submits that the land is in

their possession. This is, however, of no consequence because the land

acquiring agency is the one that takes over the possession. Since the Land

Acquisition Collector has not taken over possession of the subject land, there

is no question of the DDA claiming possession over the same. In this

context, the statement of the petitioners that they continue to be in physical

possession of the land has to be accepted.

4. Insofar as compensation is concerned, it is pointed out by the learned

counsel for the LAC that the compensation amount had been assessed at Rs

13,512/- and the same had been deposited in the Reference Court as far back

as on 16.02.1965. In response to this, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that earlier he had moved an application for execution claiming the

compensation amount. That was numbered as Execution Petition No.9/2013.

In that case, which was before the ADJ-02 (West)/Delhi, a status report had

been called for from the LAC(West). As per the report dated 18.02.1978,

Khasra No.2341 was not mentioned in the possession proceedings which

implied that possession had not been taken.

5. Based on the statement and report of the LAC, the petitioners sought

permission to withdraw the Execution Petition which permission was granted

by the ADJ-02(West)/Delhi on 27.08.2015. The counter-affidavit of the

respondent No.1, the certified copy of the statement of the LAC (West) and

the certified copy of the order dated 27.08.2015 of the ADJ-02(West)/Delhi

are taken on record.

6. It is, therefore, clear that neither physical possession of the subject

land has been taken by the land acquiring agency nor has any compensation

been paid to the petitioners. 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.

7. 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

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

8. 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