Delhi High Court
Kailash Chand Gupta & Ors vs Union Of India And Anr on 16 September, 2014
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Siddharth Mridul
$~72
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 16.09.2014
W.P.(C) 2960/2014 & CM No.6150/2014 & 6151/2014
KAILASH CHAND GUPTA & ORS* ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr T.N. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti
Tyagi, Advocates for L&B/LAC
Mr Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Mr Ajay Verma, Advocate for
DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioners seek 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. A declaration is sought to the effect that the * Corrected vide order dated 14.11.2014 passed in CM 18257/2014 in WP(C) 2960/2014. WP(C) 2960/2014 Page 1 of 3 acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which Award No. 12/2005-06 dated 15.07.2005 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 33/11 and 33/12 measuring 9 bighas 8 biswas in village Barwala shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 17.07.2007, the petitioners dispute this and maintain that physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not been paid.
3. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, this much is clear that the Award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been paid. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases stand satisfied:-
(1) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;WP(C) 2960/2014 Page 2 of 3
(2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;
(3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;
(4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and (5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors: WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 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 land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
5. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Pending applications also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 dn WP(C) 2960/2014 Page 3 of 3