Delhi High Court
Rajneesh Trust & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors. on 4 January, 2017
$~R~68A
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.01.2017
+ WP(C) No.8981/2014 & CM 20531/2014
RAJNEESH TRUST & ANR .... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr D.V. Khatri.
For the Respondent UOI : Mr A.P. Sahay
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.
For the Respondent DDA : Ms Beenashaw N. Soni.
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.28/2003-04 dated 17.02.2004 was made, inter alia, in respect
of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos.48/12 Min (4-16) and
48/19/1 (1-16) measuring 6 bighas 12 biswas in all in village Mamoorpur,
Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said
land was taken on 08.09.2004. This is disputed by the petitioners, who
claim to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.
3. In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, the same
has not been paid to the petitioners but, according to the respondents, the
same has been deposited in the treasury.
4. Without going into the controversy with regard to the 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 to the petitioners, but has only been deposited in
the treasury, which does not amount to payment of compensation as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and
Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.
5. All 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) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6
SCC 564;
(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013
decided on 10.09.2014;
(3) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C)
2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(4) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors:
WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
6. 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.
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 04, 2017/ab
