Anupama Kapoor And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 February, 2016

[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court

Anupama Kapoor And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 February, 2016

Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed

Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, R.K. Gauba

$~61

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                             Judgment delivered on: 23.02.2016

W.P.(C) 8565/2015 & CM 18505/2015

ANUPAMA KAPOOR AND ORS                                           ..... Petitioners

                             versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                          ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner           : Mr Ateev Mathur with Mr Amol Sharma, Mr APS Sehgal
For the Respondent L&B       : Mr Siddharth Panda


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Siddharth Panda on behalf of respondent no. 2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and reiterates the contents of the writ petition in response to the said counter affidavit.

2. By way of this writ petition the petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land WP(C) 8565/2015 Page 1 of 3 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.15/1987-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in khasra nos. 1012 min (3-0), 1013 min (0-4), 1025 min (0-5), 1028 min (4-7) and 1029 min (2-5) measuring 10 bigha 2 biswas in all in village Chattarpur, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. In this petition khasra no. 1027 min (4-17) was also claimed but, according to the learned counsel for the Land Acquisition Collector, that khasra was not acquired under the said award.

4. 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 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;

WP(C) 8565/2015 Page 2 of 3

(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.

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 lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

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

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J R.K. GAUBA, J FEBRUARY 23, 2016 kb WP(C) 8565/2015 Page 3 of 3

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court