Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
SATTAR MOHD & ORS.... Petitioners
…. Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Sumit Bansal, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC with
Mr Deepak Gupta Advocate for UOI.
Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for R-2/LAC L&B.
Mr Pawan Mathur, Advocate for R- 3/DDA.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
1. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the present petition is in respect of the very same land which was the subject matter of W.P.(C) No.6548/2014 titled as Amin Khan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. which 2014:DHC:7061-DB was decided by this court on 17.11.2014. The only difference is that the petitioners in that case had a 1/6th share in the subject land, whereas the petitioners in the present case have a 1/3rd share.
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.14/87-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners 1/3rd share in the land comprised in Khasra Nos.892/1 (2-8), 1052(2-0), 1056(4-16), 1057(4-16), 1058(1-19), 1061/2 Min (3-11), 1064(4-
16) and 1065(3-0) measuring 27 bighas 6 biswas in all in village Satbari, Delhi shall be deemed to have lapsed.
3. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 14.07.1987, the petitioners dispute this and maintain that 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 I.S. MEHTA, J DECEMBER 15, 2014 ab