Delhi High Court
Hoor Bano & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 July, 2017
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 18th JULY , 2017
+ W.P.(C) 2480/2016 & CM APPL. 10666/2016
HOOR BANO & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.D.V.Khatri, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, SSO/Legal,
DMRC.
Ms.Shobhana Takiar, 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 bearing Khasra No.1 etc. 114//3/2/1
total measuring 4 bighas and 2 biswas situated in the Revenue Estate
of Village Ziauddinpur, 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 06.03.1965; it
included the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 on
07.01.1969. The award bearing No. 39/1980-81 dated 09.07.1980 was
made by the Land Acquisition Collector.
3. The petitioners aver that pursuant 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 in Para (7) :
"7. That in the present case, as per report, the
possession of the above mentioned land could not be
taken and as per the Naksha Muntazamin the
compensation of the land was deposited in the RD."
5. It is evident that the counter-affidavit does not reveal if any
possession of the suit land was taken or compensation tendered or 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
land in Khasra No.1 etc. 114//3/2/1 has not been paid or possession
has not been taken, 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.1 etc. 114//3/2/1 vide award No.
39/1980-81 dated 09.07.1980 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
