Delhi High Court
Dinesh Kumar vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 6 July, 2018
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 6th July, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 4954/2016
DINESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Manoj Gupta, proxy counsel for
Mr. V.S. Tomar, Advocate.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Kushal
Raj Tater & Mr. M.S. Akhtar,
Advocates for LAC/L&B/GNCTD.
Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel
with Mr. Komal Sorout & Ms.
Mrinalini Sharma, Advocates for
DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings initiated in respect of the land of petitioner comprised in
Khasra no.1437, measuring 800 sq. yds., situated in the revenue estate
of village Rangpuri @ Malikpur Kohi, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
„the subject land‟) are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 (2)
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as the „2013 Act‟), as neither the compensation has been
tendered to the petitioner nor possession of the subject land has been
taken.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was
issued on 27.06.1996, a Section 6 declaration was made on
03.03.1997. Thereafter, an Award bearing no.03/98-99 was rendered
on 26.02.1999. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case
of the petitioner is fully covered by provisions of Section 24(2) of
2013 Act, as neither compensation has been paid to the petitioner nor
possession of subject land has been taken.
3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the decision of the
Constitution Bench would have no bearing in the present case, as
admittedly, the compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the LAC. Para 11 of counter
affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under :
"11. That as regards possession, it is humbly submitted the
possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.1437 taken
on 31/12/13. So far as compensation is concerned the
compensation amount has not been received from
requisitioning authority. Thus, the compensation amount
could not be paid to the interested persons."
5. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the LAC submits that
the possession of subject land has been taken on 31.12.2013.
However, he fairly admits that the compensation has not been tendered
to the petitioner as the same has not been received by the LAC from
the beneficiary department.
6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered
their rival submissions.
7. Reading of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC leaves no room for
doubt that no compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and
thus, one of the two ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act is
accordingly met.
8. Having regard to the fact that the compensation has not been tendered
to the petitioner and since the Award having been announced more
than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the case
of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act, thus, the petitioner is 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. It is
ordered accordingly.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 06, 2018
ck
