Delhi High Court
Ashey Ram & Anr vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 13 November, 2017
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 13th November, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 3436/2016
ASHEY RAM & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Jitender Chaudhary, Mr.Romil
Pathak, Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Sanjay Sabharwal, Standing
Counsel for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Counter affidavit has been filed by DDA. Counter affidavit filed by LAC
has been handed over in Court, copy of which, has been supplied to
counsel for the petitioner.
2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, present writ petition is set
down for final hearing and disposal.
3. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India by the
petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus and a declaration that the
acquisition proceedings in respect of land comprised in Khasra nos.76 &
80 situated in the revenue estate of village Gazipur, Delhi measuring 8
bighas 16 biswas in Khasra no.76 and 4 bigha and 9 biswas in Khasra
no.80 (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject land') (acquired vide award
no.93/86-87 and 94/86-87), to have lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
'New Act').
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither possession of the
subject land has been taken over nor compensation has been paid to the
petitioners. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of L&B/LAC also confirms
the averments made by the counsel for the petitioners. Paras 8 and 10 of
the counter affidavit filed by L&B/LAC read as under :-
"8. That in the present case, as per available records the
possession of land could not be taken over. It is respectfully
submitted that the compensation of the land could not be
disbursed to the interested persons.
10. That in the present case, as per available records the
possession of land could not be taken over. It is respectfully
submitted that the compensation of the land could not be
disbursed to the interested persons."
5. Since neither the compensation has been paid nor possession has been
taken over and the award having been announced more than five years
prior to the commencement of the New Act, in our view, the case of the
petitioners is fully covered by the decision rendered by Supreme Court of
India as well by this Court in the following cases :-
(i) Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & ors., reported at 2014 3 SCC 183;
(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors., reported at
(2014) 6 SCC 564;
(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil
Nadu and Ors, Civil Appeal no.8700/2013 decided on
10.09.2014;
(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others,
W.P.(C).2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(v) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors;
W.P.(C).2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
6. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The acquisition proceedings
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to the subject
land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
CM No.14699/2016
7. The interim order dated 26.04.2016 is confirmed.
8. Application stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
NOVEMBER 13, 2017/ck
