Davesh Chhabra v. Union of India and Ors

Delhi High Court · 05 Oct 2015 · 2015:DHC:8335-DB
Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva
W.P.(C) 1422/2015
2015:DHC:8335-DB
property petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings pending for over five years without possession or compensation under the 1894 Act are deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.

Full Text
Translation output
WP(C) 1422/2015
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
delivered on: 05.10.2015
W.P.(C) 1422/2015 & CM No.2488/2015
DAVESH CHHABRA ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr S.K. Rout with Mr Vinay Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for respondent Nos.1
& 2.
Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for respondent No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. By way of this writ petition the petitioner is 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 petitioner, consequently, seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 2015:DHC:8335-DB Act’) and in respect of which Award No.66/86-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra Nos. 2612/735-736 measuring 2 bighas 1 biswa in Village Tuglakabad shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. 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 petitioner. 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.

(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal NO. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(iv) Surinder Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.:

3. As a result the petitioner is 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.

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

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J OCTOBER 05, 2015 st