Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
REKHA CHANDHOK ..... Petitioner
For the Petitioner : Mr Manish Kumar with Mr Piyush Kaushik
For the Respondents : Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay with Ms Indu Prabha for UOI
Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B
Mr Dhanesh Relan with Mr Arush Bhandari for DDA
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 has handed over the counter affidavit. The same is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as all the material averments are contained in the writ petition. 2014:DHC:6808-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 proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) and in respect of which Award No. 15/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1520 (4-11), 1579 (4-06) and 1582 (4-09) measuring 13 bighas and 6 biswas in Village Chattarpur, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed. It may be pointed out that Khasra Nos. 1520, 1579 and 1582 comprised of 4 bighas and 16 biswas, 4 bighas 14 biswas and 4 bighas and 16 biswas resepectively. It is the case of the respondents which is not disputed by the petitioner that possession of 5 biswas, 8 biswas and 7 biswas out of the said khasra numbers respectively was taken on 01.08.2013. This petition is restricted only to the remaining portion of the said khasra numbers of which admittedly no physical possession was taken. We may also point out that although the respondents in their counter affidavits have taken the objection that there are no documents to show as to how the petitioner is connected with the subject lands. This, however, is belied by the fact that the petitioner has furnished copies of the sale deeds at pages 26 to 46 of the writ petition. A copy of the khasra girdawari is also given at pages 76 to 87 where the name of the petitioner has been clearly indicated. This objection raised on behalf of the respondents is not supported by the material on record and is, therefore, rejected.
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;
(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 SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 08, 2014 SU