Delhi High Court
Ashwani Kumar Wadhwa & Ors. vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 24 July, 2017
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 24th JULY , 2017
+ W.P.(C) 5055/2016 & CM APPL. 21110/2016
ASHWANI KUMAR WADHWA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Vishal Maan, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with
Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for L&B/LAC.
Mr.Dhanesh Relan with Ms.Isha Garg, Ms.Gauri
Chaturvedi & Mr.Harshit Manaktala, Advocates 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 Nos. 548/1 (3-12) & 550/2 (1-4)
admeasuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas situated in the Revenue Estate of
Village Satbari, New 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 25.11.1980; it included
the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 on 27.05.1985. The
award bearing No.14/87-88 dated 26.05.1987 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 (9) :
"9. That in the present case, the possession of the land in
question was not taken over and compensation was sent in
RD."
5. It is evident that neither possession of the suit lands was taken over
nor 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. 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 has not been paid and its 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 Nos. 548/1 (3-
12) & 550/2 (1-4) admeasuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas vide award
No.14/87-88 dated 26.05.1987 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 24, 2017 / tr
