Susheel Kumar Khanna vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 29 September, 2015

[Cites 3, Cited by 2]

Delhi High Court

Susheel Kumar Khanna vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. on 29 September, 2015

Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed

Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Sanjeev Sachdeva

$~9

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Judgment delivered on: 29.09.2015

W.P.(C) 5495/2015 & CM 9867/2015

SUSHEEL KUMAR KHANNA                                               ..... Petitioner

                              versus


GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.                                    ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner                     : Mr B.S. Maan with Mr Vishal Maan
For the Respondent Nos. 1&2            : Ms Jyoti Tyagi for Mr Yeeshu Jain
For the Respondent DDA                 : Mr Dhanesh Relan


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit handed over by Ms Jyoti Tyagi on behalf of Mr Yeeshu Jain, who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as the necessary averments are already contained in the writ petition.

WP(C) 5495/2015 Page 1 of 3

2. By way of this writ petition the petitioner is seeking the benefit 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') which came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioner, consequently, seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') and in respect of which Award No. 2/1998-99 dated 07.01.1999 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in khasra no. 1103 min measuring 1 bigha in village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the subject lands has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioner. The award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following decisions stand satisfied:-

(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v.

Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:

(2014) 6 SCC 564;

WP(C) 5495/2015 Page 2 of 3

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; and

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.:

W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court.

4. As a result the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the said acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

5. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 kb WP(C) 5495/2015 Page 3 of 3

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court