Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
RAMNIK SINGH UPPAL & ORS ... Petitioners
For the Petitioner : Mr Sumit Bansal, Mr Ateev Mathur and Ms Richa Oberoi
For the Respondents : Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj for UOI
Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B
Mr Pawan Mathur, Advocate for R-3
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
1. The petitioners seek 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 Award No. 14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect 2014:DHC:5684-DB of the petitioners’ land comprised in Khasra Nos. 620 (4-16), 621/1 (1- 09), 621/2 (3-07), 622 (2-00) and 623/2 (1-08) measuring 15 bighas and 16 biswas in all in village Satbari shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. The respondents state that possession in respect of Khasra No. 620 (4-16) has not been taken but possession in respect of the other Khasra numbers referred to above was taken on 30.09.1987. The petitioners dispute the factum of taking over of possession and maintain that the entire land in question is in their physical possession. However, insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that the same has not been paid.
3. Insofar as Khasra No. 620 is concerned, it is an admitted position that possession has not been taken. Insofar as the other Khasra numbers are concerned, there is a controversy with regard to the physical possession having been taken or not. However, without going into that controversy, 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.
4. As a result, the petitioners are 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.
5. 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