Ravinder Kumar Ahuja v. Union of India and Ors.

1. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1 has been handed over to us by Mr Siddharth Panda, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.[1] and 2. The same is taken on record.

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 2014:DHC:6584-DB to as ‘the 2013 Act’) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. Consequently, the petitioner 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.1570/1 (3-18), 1571/1 (3-18), 1732/1 (2-8), 1733/1/1 (0-13), 1733/1/2 (0-15), 1737/1 (3-12), 1732/2 (2-8) and 1737/2 (1-4) measuring 18 bighas 16 biswas in Village Chattarpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents and in particular the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector states that Khasra No.1737 has not been acquired at all. He states that though it was mentioned in the Section 4 notification under the 1894 Act, it was not part of the Award. Therefore, insofar as Khasra No.1737 is concerned, it is clear that the said Khasra was never acquired and the question of any deemed lapsing of an acquisition proceeding does not arise. Hence, we are considering this writ petition after excluding any reference to Khasra No.1737.

4. 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.:

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 SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 01, 2014 dn