Full Text
JUDGMENT
MAN SINGH & ORS .... Petitioners
For the Petitioner : Mr Ateev Mathur and Ms Jagriti Ahuja
For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr Niraj Kumar for UOI
For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for the
Respondent/L&B and LAC For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr Dhanesh Relan and Mr Arush Bhandari for DDA
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
1. Mr Yeeshu Jain has handed over the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2. The same is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit, inasmuch as, according to him, all the necessary averments are contained in the writ petition itself. 2015:DHC:1308-DB
2. The petitioners seek 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. 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. 23/87-88 dated 17.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the 4/5th share of the petitioners’ land comprised in Khasra Nos. 732/176 (1-10), 733/176 (1-00), 1012/714/326 (2-00), 322 (1-01), 349 (4-08), 5881 Min (1-18), 588 (1-17) and full share in Khasra Nos. 425 (0-14), 350 (2-
09) and 911/577 (1-01) in village Maidan Garhi shall be deemed to have lapsed. The total extent of the land in all the above Khasra numbers is 15 bighas, 3 biswas and 12 biswansis. The total land in the first set of khasras is 13 bighas and 14 biswas. The 4/5th share of this comes to 10 bighas and 19 biswas. The total extent of the land in the second set of land is 4 bighas and 4 biswas. Therefore the total land of the petitioners is 15 bighas, 3 biswas and 12 biswansis.
3. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 16.07.1987, the petitioners dispute this and maintain that Correction has been carried out by virtue of order dated 22.08.2016. physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not been paid.
4. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, this much is clear that the Award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been paid. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases stand satisfied:- (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; and (5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors: WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
5. 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.
6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J FEBRUARY 09, 2015 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J SU