Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
OM APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
For the Petitioner : Mr Daleep Kr. Dhayani.
For the Respondents : Mr Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Mr Roshan Lal Goel and
Mr Rohitendra Deb for UOI.
Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B.
Ms Mrinalini Sen Gupta and Ms Mrinmoi Chatterjee for DDA.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. The counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos.[4] and 5, which is handed over by Mr Jain, is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit.
2. The petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and 2014:DHC:6411-DB 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 petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra Nos.114 (4-16) and 115(4-16) measuring 9 bighas 12 biswas in all in Village- Satbari, Delhi shall be deemed to have lapsed.
3. The respondents claim that possession of Khasra No.114 was taken on 14.07.1987. The petitioner disputes this and maintains that physical possession of even the said Khasra No.114 has not been taken. Insofar as Khasra No.115 is concerned it is an admitted position that the physical possession of the same remains with the petitioner. Therefore, there is only a dispute with regard to the physical possession of Khasra No.114.
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 petitioner is 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 SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J NOVEMBER 25, 2014 mk