Delhi High Court
Himanshu Gupta vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 July, 2018
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 6th July, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 1744/2016
HIMANSHU GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anand Yadav with Ms. Anita
Tomar, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rajesh Kumar with Ms.
Santwana, Advocates for UOI.
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.676 min., measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas, situated in the
revenue estate of village Malik Pur Kohi @ Rang Puri, 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 notifications under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) were
issued on 01.06.1995 and 27.06.1996, a Section 6 declaration was
made on 24.06.1997. Thereafter, an Award bearing no.7/98-99/SW
was rendered on 22.06.1999. 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 8 of counter
affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under :
"8. That as regards possession, it is humbly submitted as per
the possession proceedings report, possession of the land in
question i.e. Khasra no.676 min (1-02) was taken on
31.12.2013. So far as compensation, is concerned, the
compensation amount had not been received in the account
of LAC New Delhi District & 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.
CM APPL 7478/2016 (stay)
10. The application stands disposed of in view of the order passed in the
writ petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 06, 2018/ck
