Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
MANORAMA DEVI AND ORS ..... Petitioners
For the Petitioners : Mr Sumit Bansal with Mr Ateev Mathur, Ms Richa Oberoi and Ms
Jagriti Ahuja, Advocates.
For the Respondents :Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC for respondent No.1/UOI.
Mr Siddharth Panda, Advocate for respondent No.2
Mr Pawan Mathur, Advocate for respondent No.3
.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
1. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has handed over the counter affidavit. The same is taken on record. The learned counsel for the 2015:DHC:537-DB petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and would be relying on the averments made in the writ petition.
2. By way of this writ petition the petitioners are 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 petitioners, consequently, seek 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.24/87-88 dated 09.07.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners’ 1/4th share in the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1166(1-6) and 1167/2 (3-4) measuring 4 bighas 10 biswas in Village Chattarpur 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 petitioners. 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 petitioners are 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 JANUARY 19, 2015 st