Param Mitra Manav Nirman Sansthan vs Union Of India And Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 5361 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     Date of Decision: September 22, 2017
+       W.P.(C) 6108/2015 & C.M. 11110/2015

        PARAM MITRA MANAV NIRMAN SANSTHAN ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Sumit Bansal & Mr. Prateek
                     Kohli, Advocates

                           Versus

        UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                    ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for respondent-UOI Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocates for respondent-L&B/LAC Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate for respondent-DDA

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)

1. The claim in this petition is for a direction that petitioner's land bearing Khasra No.867/2 (admeasuring 2000 sq. yards), situated in the revenue estate of village Mahipalpur, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the „suit land‟) be declared free from acquisition in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act of 2013").

2. In this case, notification in respect of suit land under Section 4 of the old Land Acquisition Act (of 1894) was issued on 23.01.1965. A

declaration under the old Act was issued under Section 6 on 07.12.1966. The petitioner complains that after framing of the Award on 16.09.1986, neither was possession of the acquired lands taken over by the respondents nor compensation or any part of it was paid.

3. The Counter affidavit of Government of NCT of Delhi , states inter alia as follows:-

"9. That as regards status of possession and compensation in respect of the subject land, it is humbly submitted that as per possession report dated 11.02.2003, possession of Khasra No. 867/2 (3-16) has been taken. With regard to compensation amount, it is humbly submitted that as per NakshaMuntzamin compensation amount has been sent to revenue deposit. It is further submitted that notice under section 12(2) was also served 26/11/1986 to Sh. Khyali Ram S/o Mathura."

4. Counsel for respondent-DDA points out that a portion of suit lands to the extent of 1200 sq. yards had been taken possession of and utilized for construction of roads.

5. Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and. Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, has held that if the acquiring body either does not pay compensation to the land owner or does not take possession within five years before coming into force of the 2013 Act, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.

6. In these circumstances, the petition has to succeed. A declaration is issued to the effect that the suit lands in Khasra No.867/2 situated in the

revenue estate of village Mahipalpur, Delhi, are free from acquisition and the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013.

7. The writ petition is allowed in above terms. The pending application also stand disposed of.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

SUNIL GAUR (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 22, 2017 r