Fazruddin v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors

1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Jain on behalf of respondent no.2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and reiterates the averments made in the writ petition.

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 2014:DHC:7027-DB 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 the Award NO. 10/1987-88 dated 14.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in khasra numbers 457(4-16) and 458/2(2-08) measuring 7 bighas 4 biswas in village Sayoorpur, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the same has not been paid to them whereas it is the case of the respondents that the said compensation was deposited in court pursuant to an order passed by a Vacation Judge of this court in C.M.(Main) 1407/2013 passed on 30.12.2013. By virtue of that order, the said C.M.(Main), amongst others, was disposed of by recording that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land holders the cheque tendered in each petition would be treated as tendered to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi as of that date i.e. 30.12.2013. According to the respondents this amounts to payment of compensation. However, this issue has already been settled by a decision of this court in Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. WPC 1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014 wherein this court held that unless and until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere deposit of the compensation in court would not be sufficient. The compensation cannot be regarded as having been paid merely on the deposit of the same in court unless and until it has first been offered to the person interested and he has refused to accept the same. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the compensation amount was tendered in this court in the said C.M (Main) 1407/2013 without first being offered to the petitioner herein. Therefore the same, following the decision in Gyanender Singh (supra), cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioner.

4. Although the petitioner claims that the physical possession of the subject land is with the petitioner, this is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. They claim that the possession was taken on 14.07.1987. We need not go into the controversy with regard to the physical possession. This is so because compensation, as indicated above has not been paid to the petitioner and the award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients necessary for the applicability 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.

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others:

(v) Gyanender Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors:

5. 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.

6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

I. S. MEHTA, J

DECEMBER 15, 2014 kb