Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
SHRI RAM RATTAN SHARMA .... Petitioner
For the Petitioners : Mr N. S. Vasisht with Mr Vishal Singh, Ms Jyoti Kataria and Mr M. P. Bhargava
For the Respondent Nos.1-2 : Mr Jaswinder Singh
For the Respondent No.3 : Mr Dhanesh Relan with Mr Arush Bhandari
For the Respondent Nos.4-5 : Mr Siddharth Panda
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
1. Mr Siddharth Panda, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.[4] and 5 has handed over the affidavit on behalf of Land Acquisition Collector (South). The same is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder/affidavit inasmuch as all the necessary averments are contained in the writ petition. 2015:DHC:2004-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’) and in respect of which Award No. 24A/1974-75 (Supplementary) dated 24.06.1983 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra No. 195/3 measuring 1 bigha in village Sultanpur 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. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; and
(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 MARCH 02, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J SR