Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
GIRIRAJ SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners
For the Petitioner : Mr N.S. Vashisth, Mr Vishal Singh, Ms Jyoti Kataria and Mr Madhur
Bhargava, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr Siddharth Pande, Advocate with Ms Priyabrat Sahu, Advocate for
R-5/L&B
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. The present writ petition has been filed 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 prayers made in this present petition are as under:- “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction of the similar nature declaring the entire acquisition with respect to the said land of the 2014:DHC:5162-DB petitioners having lapsed and further quashing the impugned notification No.F.4(98)/64-L&H dated 23.01.1965 issued under section 4, notification No.F.4(98)/64-L&H dated 26.12.1968 (published on 16.01.1969) issued under Section 6 and the award No.146/81-82 dated 30.03.1981 with respect to 44 Bighas 19 Biswas of the land of the Petitioners comprised in Khasra Nos.1368 (4-16), 1369 (8-3), 1370 (4-16), 1371(3-14), 1372/1 (5-15), 1373(4-16), 1374(6-8), 1375(3-12), 1376(2-19), situated in the revenue estate of village Malikpur Kohi & Rangpuri, New Delhi.
(ii) Pass any other order or writ or direction as this Hon’b le Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
2. While the petitioners claim that neither possession has been taken over nor the compensation has been paid, the learned counsel for the respondents dispute the issue with regard to possession but admit that compensation has not been paid.
3. In view of the decisions of this Court in Surender Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. in: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 and Girish Chhabra vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors.: in WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act inasmuch as, even if we do not consider the issue of possession, compensation has admittedly not been paid to the petitioners. The Award was made on 30.03.1981 which is more than 5 years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Therefore, the necessary ingredient of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act stands satisfied. Following the decisions in the above mentioned cases which, in turn, relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court, the acquisition in question is declared to have lapsed in view of the deeming provisions of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act.
4. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 ks