Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
PREM SINGH DHINGRA ... Petitioner
For the Petitioner : Ms Smita Maan and Mr Vishal Maan
For the Respondents : Mr Ajay Digpaul with Mr Kunal Punj for R-1&2
Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B
Mr Arjun Pant for DDA
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
1. 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 to as ‘the 2013 Act’) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioner, consequently, seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 2014:DHC:5694-DB referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) and in respect of which Award No. 1/2007- 08 dated 06.08.2007 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra Nos. 30//13 (2-18), 30//14 (4-04) and 30//8/1 (1-12) measuring 8 bighas and 14 biswas in Village Bamnoli shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. 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.
(iv) Surinder Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.:
3. 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.
4. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO
NOVEMBER 3, 2014 SU