Delhi High Court
Jagbir Singh & Anr vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 August, 2016
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Ashutosh Kumar
$~45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 09.08.2016
+ W.P.(C) 11235/2015
JAGBIR SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr N.S. Chechi.
For the UOI : Mr Chiranjeev Kumar with Mr Mukesh Sachdeva.
For the L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.
For the DDA : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal for DDA.
Ms Minal Sehgal for applicant in CM 27335/2016.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 27335/2016
1. This is an application for impleadment. We are not inclined to entertain this application because the person seeking impleadment has no right over the land in question. We are, therefore, dismissing this application. However, the dismissal is without prejudice to the rights that he may have against DDA in law.
WP(C) 11235/2015 Page 1 of 3
2. The application is dismissed.
W.P.(C) 11235/2015 & CM 29273/2015
1. Mr Yeeshu Jain has handed over a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.3 which is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and places full reliance on the averments made in the writ petition.
2. By way of this writ petition the petitioners are 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 petitioners, consequently, seek 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.6D/Supp/86-87 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra No.268 (7-15) measuring 7 bighas 15 biswas in Village Jasola 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 petitioners. The award was made more than WP(C) 11235/2015 Page 2 of 3 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;
(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 petitioners are 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 ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J AUGUST 09, 2016 ab WP(C) 11235/2015 Page 3 of 3