Delhi High Court
Chet Ram & Ors vs Land Acquisition Collector ... on 18 July, 2017
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 18th JULY , 2017
+ W.P.(C) 8205/2015 & CM APPL. 17194/15
CHET RAM & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Inder Singh, Advocate.
versus
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR SOUTH-EAST & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through : Ms.Himani Kaushik, Advocate for
Mr.Sushil Dutt Salwan, Advocate for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners claim themselves to
be recorded owners of the land of Khasra No. 754(8-0) measuring 8
bighas situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Tughlaqabad, Delhi.
The petitioners claim is that acquisition of their lands (hereinafter
referred to as 'suit land') has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act').
2. The necessary facts are that a notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old Act) was issued on 23.01.1965; it
included the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 on
13.01.1969. The award bearing No.50A/SUPP./69-70 dated
04.11.1981 was made by the Land Acquisition Collector.
3. The petitioners aver that pursuance to the award, neither
physical possession of the suit land was taken over by the respondents
nor any compensation in respect thereof was ever paid or tendered.
Relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & Ors., 2014 (3) SCC 183, counsel urged that the
acquisition has lapsed since five year period indicated in Section 24(2)
of the Act has ended.
4. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi through LAC, in its counter-
affidavit, significantly makes the following admission :
"5. That the revenue records notes that the physical
possession of the subject land falling in khasra number
754 (8-00) has been taken. As per Naksha Muntazamin,
compensation could not be paid. The statement is not
available."
5. It is evident that the counter-affidavit does not reveal if any
compensation for the acquisition of the land in Khasra No. 754(8-0)
was paid to the recorded owner(s).
6. The Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation case (supra)
dealt with the issue, i.e. as to whether compensation amount has to be
actually paid, or deposited. That decision clarified that mere deposit
of the amount in the Treasury would not fulfill requirement of Section
24(2) and that there should be a positive step to appropriate the
concerned amount and make it available to the land owner, i.e. by way
of payment under Section 31(2) of the old Act, or by deposit of the
compensation in Court.
7. As the respondents have not denied that the compensation of the
suit land in Khasra No. 754(8-0) has not paid or tendered, in the
present case, the petitioners are entitled to the declaration sought to
that extent. Accordingly, it is held that acquisition of suit land in
Khasra No. 754(8-0) vide award No.50A/SUPP./69-70 dated
04.11.1981 is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the
Act.
8. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
S.P.GARG
(JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
JULY 18, 2017 / tr
