Delhi High Court
Khemchand And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 2 November, 2017
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 02 nd November, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 10288/2015
KHEMCHAND AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Prateek Kohli, Ms.Sumi Anand
and Ms.Richa Oberoi, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Chiranjeev Kumar and Mr.Mukesh
Sachdeva, Advts. for R-1/UOI.
Mr.Siddharth Panda, Adv. for
L&B/LAC
Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Sanjay Singh and
Mr.Rohan Mehra, Advocates for
DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Mr.Panda submits that the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
the LAC in Registry vide diary no.263091 dated 26.05.2017 but the
same is not on record. An additional copy of the counter affidavit has
been handed over in court. Registry is directed to trace the counter
affidavit and place the same on record.
2. With the consent of counsels for the parties, the writ petition is set
down for final hearing and disposal.
3. In the present writ petition the petitioner seeks a declaration that the
acquisition proceedings qua the land of the petitioner situated in Khasra
No.247 (16-10) and 248 (4-10) total admeasuring 21 bighas situated in
the revenue estate of Village Jasola, New Delhi stands lapsed in view of
the fact that neither the possession was taken over nor any
compensation has been paid. Counsel for the petitioner submits that
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
were issued on 06.04.1964 & 07.12.1966 respectively and thereafter an
award No.6D/Suppl./86-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made. The counsel
submits that in view of the fact that neither possession was taken over
nor compensation was paid, the case of the petitioner would be fully
covered by the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation &
Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors., 2014 3 SCC 183.
4. Mr.Panda, learned counsel for LAC while relying on para 7 of the
counter affidavit submits that the possession of the aforesaid land could
not be taken over due to the area being built up and as per Naksha
Mumtzin compensation was sent to Revenue Deposit (RD). Counsel
for the DDA has also filed a counter affidavit on similar lines.
5. Section 24 of the New Act came up for interpretation before the
Supreme Court in the matter of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra).
In the this judgment, the Court held as under:-
"Under Section 24(2) land acquisition proceedings initiated
under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are deemed to have
lapsed where award has been made five years or more prior
to the commencement of 2013 Act and possession of the
land is not taken or compensation has not been paid. The
legal fiction under Section 24(2) comes into operation as
soon as conditions stated therein are satisfied. The
applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act being
subject to Section 24(2), there is no merit in the contention
of the Corporation."
6. In another case of Bharat Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Ors., 2014
(3) SCALE 393, the Supreme Court held as under :
"Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 commences with a non-
obstante clause. It is a beneficial provision. In view of this
provision, if the physical possession of the land has not
been taken by the Acquiring Authority though the award is
passed and if the compensation has not been paid to the
land owners or has not been deposited before the
appropriate forum, the proceedings initiated under the Act,
1894 is deemed to have been lapsed."
7. Thereafter the interpretation of Section 24 of the New Act came up
before three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Union
of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors., (2014) 6 SCC 564 wherein after
dealing all the aforesaid judgments and arguments, the Court noted that
since the possession has not been taken over till date, though the
compensation has been deposited with the Revenue Department, the
same cannot be termed as deemed payment as has been held in the case
of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), the benefit of Section 24 is to
be given to the land owners.
8. This Court in a series of writ petitions including Writ Petition (C)
No.2806/2004 and 2807-2934/2004 titled as Jagjit Singh and Ors. Vs.
Union of India and Ors. in the judgment delivered on 27.05.2014 has
been pleased to hold that in view of the deeming provisions of Section
24(2) of the New Act, the acquisition proceedings in the writ petition
shall be deemed to have lapsed in respect of the petitioner's land.
9. For the reasons stated above, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration
that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is
declared accordingly. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to cost.
C.M.25617/2015 (stay)
10. The interim order dated 04.11.2015 is confirmed.
11. The application stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
NOVEMBER 02, 2017
rb
