Delhi High Court
Ajit Kumar @ Ajit Kumar Chaudhary ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 February, 2018
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgement: 27th February, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 1934/2017
AJIT KUMAR @ AJIT KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajeev Verma, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with
Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
L&B/LAC.
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J (ORAL)
1. With the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is set down
for final hearing and disposal.
2. This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by
the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings with respect to land bearing Khasra No.'s 189(5-10),
191(3-1), 214/1(1-12) and 214/2(3-4), measuring 12 Bighas 27
Biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village Molar Band,
Tehsil Kalkaji, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'subject
land') stand lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
W.P.(C) 1934/2017 Page 1 of 3
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to
as '2013 Act') as no compensation has been paid to the petitioners.
3. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on
06.04.1964 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on
15.06.1965. Thereafter, an Award bearing no.1934-
C/SUPPLY/1980-81 was passed on 06.02.1981.
4. Mr. Rajeev Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the physical possession of the land was taken on 10.04.1997
however as no compensation in respect thereof has been paid, the
petitioners would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24 (2)
of the 2013 Act.
5. Counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court to the
counter affidavit filed by LAC wherein it has been categorically
stated that as per Statement-A the compensation has not been paid.
6. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, counsel for the LAC submits that actual vacant
physical possession of the subject land was taken on 10.04.1997
and handed over to DDA for further utilization, however there is
no entry in Statement-A which reflects that the compensation has
been paid to the petitioners. Para.5 of the counter affidavit filed by
LAC reads as under :-
"That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed
as the actual vacant physical possession of the subject
land was duly taken on 10.04.1997 on the spot by
preparing possession proceedings and handed over to
the DDA on the spot however there is no entry in
Statement-A reflecting the compensation as paid."
W.P.(C) 1934/2017 Page 2 of 3
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Taking into
consideration the submissions made and the categorical assertion
made in the counter affidavit filed by LAC that the compensation
has not been paid and since the award has been announced more
than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the
petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with
regard to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. However, as
the possession of the subject land has been taken over and the land
has been put to use, the petitioners would only be entitled to
compensation as per the 2013 Act. Compensation be released
within one year from today. It is ordered accordingly.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
FEBRUARY 27, 2018
