Sushil Kumar Jain v. Union of India and Anr.

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this matter is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014. He states that although possession of the subject land has been taken, the award under 2014:DHC:5821-DB the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) was made more than five years prior to the commencement 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. In this case Award No.8/91-92 was made on 12.02.1992. He also states that compensation has not yet been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have been fulfilled and the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is situated in Village Siraspur in Khasra No.715 (4-16), out of which the petitioner claims to own only 1 bigha.

2. Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has been taken on 15.09.2004 – 18.09.2004, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. The award was also made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Consequently, the decision of this Court in Girish Chhabra (supra) applies on all fours and the subject acquisition has lapsed.

3. The writ petition is allowed by declaring that the acquisition in respect of the subject land has lapsed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J NOVEMBER 10, 2014 mk