Delhi High Court
Simla Devi And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 2 February, 2018
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 02nd February, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 7031/2015
SIMLA DEVI AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms.Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Prateek Yadav, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Mr.Nikhil Kumar and
Mr.Atul Krishna, Advocates for respondent
no.1/UOI.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with
Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
respondent/LAC-L&B.
Mr.Arun Birbal and Mr.Sanjay Singh,
Advocates for respondent/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. At the outset, Ms.Luthra, learned Senior Counsel submits, on
instructions, that land of the petitioner Janak Rani, mentioned at serial
no.6 in Khasra No.58 pertains to only 1 bigha and not 1 bigha 6
biswas as reflected in the writ petition.
2. The petitioners, who are ten (10) in number seek the benefit of Section
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act which came into
effect on January 1, 2014 (2013 Act). A declaration is sought to the
effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as the „1894 Act‟) in
respect of which Award No. 15/1992-93 dated 19th June, 1992 was
made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners‟ land comprised in the
following Khasra numbers deemed to have lapsed.
S. Name Land Details Area Bigha-Biswa
No.
1. Smt. Shimla Devi w/o Khasra No.58 1-0
Shri P.D.Jain
2. Smt. Savitri Devi w/o Khasra No.57 1-0
Shri Inder Das
3. M/s Pyare Lal & Sons Khasra No.62 1-0
(HUF) through Karta
Mr.Rajesh Bansal
4. Mr.Deepak Garg s/o Khasra No.58 1-0
Shri Prem Kumar
5. Dr.Arun Gupta s/o Khasra No.62 1-0
Shri Manohar Lal
7. Mr.J.Aggarwal Khasra No. 64 1-0
(the above five
persons) are the legal
heirs of Manohar Lal
(now deceased) and
owned 1/5 each of
Khasra No.64
3. Though, the LAC in its counter-affidavit claim that possession of the
land in question has been taken over and handed over to the
beneficiary department on 21st April, 2006, the petitioners‟ dispute
this and maintain the physical possession has not been taken over.
However, insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is
stated as per statement "A" compensation was not paid to the
recorded owner.
4. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, it is clear
that the Award was made more than five years prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not
been paid. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this
Court in the following cases stand satisfied:-
(1) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;
(2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC
564;
(3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil
Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on
10.09.2014;
(4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C)
2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors: WP(C)
2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
5. As a result, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the said
acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the
subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
6. An argument has also been raised with regard to the maintainability of
the writ petition by the petitioners.
7. We would also like to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Manav Dharam Trust &
Ors., 2017 6 SCC 751, wherein in para 26 Supreme Court has held as
under:
"26. There is a clear indication that the Act
proposes to protect the interest of those persons,
among others who are affected by the acquisition.
The subsequent purchasers/ successors, etc., in the
cases before us, are all people affected by the
acquisition, and therefore, also they are entitled to
seek a declaration on lapse under the 2013 Act."
8. We also refer to an order dated 15th February, 2016 in the case of
B.S. Dhillon and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C)
2916/2015, decided on 15th February, 2016 relatable to the same
award i.e. Award No.15/1992-93 dated 19th June, 1992, wherein
similar declaration with respect of the land comprised in khasra nos.
62 and 65 in village Behlolpur Khadar, New Delhi has been granted
in favour of the petitioners therein.
9. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no
order as to costs.
CM No.12883/2015
The application is disposed of, in view of order passed in writ petition
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2018
ssc
