Delhi High Court
Sanjay & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors. on 19 July, 2017
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 19th JULY , 2017
+ W.P.(C) 9820/2016
SANJAY & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.M.C.Verma, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with
Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for L&B/LAC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (OPEN COURT)
CM APPL. 25202/2017 (Early hearing)
1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the date is pre-poned
and the matter is taken up for hearing today.
2. The application stands disposed of.
3. The date already fixed in the matter i.e. 31st October, 2017 stands
cancelled.
W.P.(C) 9820/2016 & CM APPL. 39100/2016
1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioners claim themselves to be
recorded owners of the land of Khasra Nos. 25//22/1 measuring 4 bighas
and 03 biswas and 25//27 measuring 3 bighas and 07 biswas situated in the
Revenue Estate of Mamoor Pur. 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 30.10.1963; it included
the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 on 16.01.1969. The
award bearing No. 202/86-87 dated 19.09.1986 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
the five year period indicated in Section 24(2) of the Act has ended.
4. The respondent No.1 - Union of India through LAC, in its counter-
affidavit, significantly makes the following admission in Para (5A) :
"5A. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed
as the actual vacant physical possession of the subject land
falling in khasra number 25//22/1 (4-00) and 25//27 (3-05)
was duly taken on the spot on 23.9.1986 and handed over to
the requisition agency on the spot by preparing possession
proceeding on the spot. The remaining parcel of the subject
land falling in khasra number 25//22/1 (0-03) and 25//27 (0-
02) was duly taken on the spot on 19.3.2004 and handed
over to the requisition agency on the spot by preparing
possession proceeding on the spot. However, the
compensation for the said lands could not be paid and lying
deposited in RD as the petitioners and/or recorded owners
never turned up to claim the same."
5. It is evident that the counter-affidavit does not reveal if any
compensation for acquisition of the suit land was 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. The 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 Nos. 25//22/1 measuring 4 bighas and 03 biswas and 25//27
measuring 3 bighas and 07 biswas has not been paid, 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 Nos. 25//22/1 measuring 4
bighas and 03 biswas and 25//27 measuring 3 bighas and 07 biswas vide
award No. 202/86-87 dated 19.09.1986 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 19, 2017 / tr
