Veena Jain v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The counter-affidavit handed over by Mr Siddharth Panda on behalf of the respondent No. 2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder/ affidavit inasmuch as the averments made in the writ petition would be relied upon.

2. 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 2015:DHC:5319-DB 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 Act’) and in respect of which Award No.06/2005- 06 dated 12.07.2005 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra No. 49/9/2 min measuring 1 bigha in all in Village Pehladpur Bangar, 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 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.

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.:

4. 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.

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

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J JULY 07, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J SR