Delhi High Court
Veena Mahajan & Anr vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 16 September, 2014
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Siddharth Mridul
$~84(III+I)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 16.09.2014
+ W.P.(C) 3729/2014 & CM 7551/2014
VEENA MAHAJAN & ANR ..... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr B. S. Maan
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Mr Sanjay Kumar
Pathak with Mr Sunil Kumar Jha and Mrs Kiran Pathak for
the Respondent/L&B and LAC
Mr Ajay Verma 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 acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which Award No. 2/1998-99 dated 06.01.1999 was made, inter alia, in respect of W.P.(C) No. 3729/2014 Page 1 of 3 the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1271 (1 bigha 2 biswas) and 1283 (1 bigha 2 biswas) in village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. In this case, the respondents admit that possession has not been taken in respect of Khasra No. 1283 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas. But, it is contended by the respondents that possession has been taken in respect of Khasra No. 1271 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that this possession is only a paper possession and actual physical possession remains with the petitioner. This fact is, however, disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. This case is clearly covered under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act even if the possession with regard to one part of the land is disputed. This is so because in respect of both the khasra numbers, no compensation has admittedly been paid to the petitioners and the Award is more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. The acquisition in question is deemed to have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases:-
(1) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;W.P.(C) No. 3729/2014 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 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
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SR
W.P.(C) No. 3729/2014 Page 3 of 3