Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
J.P. GUPTA (H.U.F.) ..... Petitioner
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Akhil Mittal and Ms Shiba Batra
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for R-1 &3
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and places reliance on the averments already contained in the writ petition. 2015:DHC:4764-DB
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 referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioner, consequently, seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) in respect of which Award No.217/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra No. 68/1 Min measuring 4 bighas 10 biswas in Village Kilokri, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
3. It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the subject land 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.:
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 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MAY 26, 2015 ‘sn’