Full Text
JUDGMENT
ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. .... Petitioners
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Vishal Maan, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Mr Sunil Kumar Jha, Advocates for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for respondent No.3.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
1. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.[1] & 2 handed over by Mr Pathak is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch according to him the necessary averments are contained in the writ petition.
2. The petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation 2015:DHC:2783-DB and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. A declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) in respect of which Award No. 40/1980-81 dated 14.07.1980 and Award No.50/80-81 dated 18.07.1980 were made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra Nos.286 min (0-07), 251(10-05), 252/2(0-03), 292(1-16), 293(1-05), 294(0-05), 900/289(25-01) measuring 39 bighas and 2 biswas in all in village Haiderpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.
3. With regard to possession, there is a clear dispute inasmuch as according to the respondents, part possession has been taken of the said land whereas according to the petitioners, the possession has not been taken.
4. Insofar as the question of compensation is concerned, the stand of the petitioners is that they had not received any compensation nor has the compensation amount been offered to them. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the records are not available and, therefore, they are not in a position to either confirm or contradict the statement of the petitioners that the compensation has not been paid to them. The position as it obtains today is that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioners.
5. Insofar as the question of physical possession is concerned, it is partly admitted that the same has not been taken in respect of a portion of the land whereas in respect of the balance portion, there is a dispute with regard to the issue of physical possession. The Award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and although the issue of physical possession (partly) is disputed, compensation has clearly not been paid to the petitioners. That being the case, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act clearly apply in the light of the various decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court in: (1) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183; (2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564; (3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; (4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
6. 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 land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
7. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MARCH 23, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J st