Full Text
JUDGMENT
LAJWANTI JAIN .... Petitioner
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr N.S. Dalal, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr Yeeshu Jain, Advocate with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
R-1 Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for R-2
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Mr Yeeshu Jain, has handed over the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1, which is taken on record.
2. The petitioner seeks 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 2014:DHC:5829-DB Award No.157/86-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra No.69//3/2 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas in all in village Palam, New Delhi shall be deemed to have lapsed.
3. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 04.01.2002, the petitioner disputes this and maintains 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. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the above land is gaon sabha land. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the above land does not belong to gaon sabha. We are not commenting upon the title in respect of the subject land. We have only declared that the acquisition in respect of the subject land shall be deemed to have lapsed.
6. In view of the fact that the ingredients of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act stand satisfied it is declared that the said acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject land have lapsed.
7. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J NOVEMBER 10, 2014/dn SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J