Full Text
JUDGMENT
NEELAM SRIVASTAVA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
For the Petitioner : Mr Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate with Mr Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
Mr B.S. Maan, Mr Vishal Maan, Mr Pantosh Tomar and Mr. Khitij Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC for R-1
Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr Kushal
Raj, Advocates Mr Siddharth Panda, Advocate for R-2
Mr Dhanesh Relan and Mr A. Bhandari, Advocate for DDA
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
1. By way of this writ petition the petitioners are 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 2015:DHC:6408-DB 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. 90/1980- 81 dated 22.12.1980 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners’ land comprised in Khasra No. 386/76 (3-12) measuring 3 bighas 12 biswas situated in revenue estate of village Masoodpur, New Delhi, 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 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.
(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:
(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v.
(iv) Surinder Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.:
3. It may also be pointed out that he may point out that intervention application has been filed in CM No. 6217/2015 where the intervention explaining is claimed to be in possession of the subject land. The dispute with regard to possession inter-se the petitioners and the applicant in the said application. We are not deciding this issue of disputes inter-se these two parties we have only recorded the admitted position that the Land Acquisition Collector is not of the subject land. The issue of possession inter-se the petitioners and the applicant in CM NO. 6217/2015 will have to resolve elsewhere in appropriate forum as per law.
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 along with the pending applications is allowed to the aforesaid extent. CM No. 6217/2015 is also stands disposed of in view of the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J AUGUST 10, 2014 RS