Kartari Devi & Others vs Union Of India & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 434 Del

$~87
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                   Judgment delivered on: 24.01.2017

+       WP(C) No.4456/2015 & CM 8078/2015

KARTARI DEVI & OTHERS                                     ...      Petitioners

                                    versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                      ...      Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:-
For the Petitioners          : Mr N.S. Chechi
For the Respondent/UoI       : Mr Vivekanand Mishra with Mr Rishabh Sahu
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent DDA       : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Mr Hem Kumar

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, which is the subject- matter of the

present petition, ought to be deemed to have lapsed in view of the Section

24(2) of the 2013 Act.

2. The number of the award is 21/1992-93 and is dated 18.06.1992. It

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

426 min (2-12) and 432 min (5-10), measuring 8 bigha 2 biswas in all in

village Jasola, Delhi. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners

that physical possession is with them. However, it is stated by the learned

counsel for the LAC that physical possession was taken on 19.01.2006. It

is also stated that the land is to be utilised for channelization of river

Yamuna. Compensation has, however, not been paid to the petitioners.

3. Although physical possession of the subject land is disputed, the

compensation has not been paid to the petitioners and the award was

made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act.

Consequently, all the necessary ingredients of Section 24(2) of the 2013

Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following

decisions, 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: 2015 (3) SCC 353;

(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. The inevitable conclusion would be that the acquisition

proceedings would have to be declared as having lapsed. Although, the

learned counsel for the petitioners disputes that physical possession has

been taken, he submits that the petitioners are not claiming the return of

the land and would be satisfied, if compensation is given to the petitioners

under the 2013 Act. This is a fair and very reasonable approach adopted

on behalf of the petitioners. It also enables the respondents to retain the

land for the purpose for which it was sought to have been acquired

without going through an entirely new acquisition process. Therefore, we

direct that the compensation be paid to the petitioners in terms of the

2013 Act. The same be done within six months.

5. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There shall be no

order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J JANUARY 24, 2017 dutt