Rajnish Kumar Singla And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 August, 2016

[Cites 3, Cited by 2]

Delhi High Court

Rajnish Kumar Singla And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 August, 2016

Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed

Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Ashutosh Kumar

$~48

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Judgment delivered on: 02.08.2016

W.P.(C) 12078/2015 & CM 32070/2015

RAJNISH KUMAR SINGLA AND ANR                                       ..... Petitioners

                             versus


UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                             ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners          : Mr D.V. Khatri
For the Respondent for UOI   : Mr Vivek Goyal with Mr Prabhakar Srivastav
For the Respondent LAC       : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA       : Mr Arun Birbal


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

                                 JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain on behalf of the respondent no.4 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as the necessary averments are contained in the writ petition.

WP(C) 12078/2015 Page 1 of 3

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 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.28/2003-04 dated 17.02.2004 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in khasra no. 47//5 min (0-08), 47//6/1 min (1-07), 47//6/2 min (0-02), 48//10/1 min (0-

11), 47//15 min (0-4) and 47//16 min (1-08) measuring 4 bighas in village Mamoorpur, Narela, 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 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) 12078/2015 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.

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 02, 2016 kb WP(C) 12078/2015 Page 3 of 3

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court