Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
SUBHASH KATHURIA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr Gaurav Gupta.
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B.
Mr Arjun Pant for DDA.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Mr Jain states that the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 (Land Acquisition Collector) vide Diary No.194872 on 13.10.2014. The Registry is directed to place the same on record. We have, however, been handed over a copy of the said counter affidavit which is placed in the main file and we have examined the same. 2014:DHC:5350-DB
2. By way of this writ petition the petitioners are 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 petitioners, consequently, seek a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) and in respect of which Award No.1/2007-08 dated 06.08.2008 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners’ land comprised in Khasra Nos.8/24, 22/4, 22/5, 22/6, 22/7, 22/15, 22/16, 22/21, 25/2/1, 26/23, 26/24, 26/25, 21/24, 21/25, 26/14, 26/15, 25/10/2, 25/11, 25/19, 25/20, 25/21, 26/4, 26/7, 26/16, 26/17, 37/3, 37/13/2, 38/1, 37/4, 37/5, 37/6, 37/7, 37/8, 25/22/1, 25/23, 25/24, 38/7, 25/17, 25/18, 38/2, 38/3, 38/4/1 measuring 170 bighas 9 biswas in Village-Bamnoli shall be deemed to have lapsed.
3. 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 petitioners. 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. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal NO. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;
(iv) Surinder Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.:
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 lands 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 SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J OCTOBER 14, 2014 mk