Ashok Kumar v. Union of India and Ors

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the acquisition in respect of the land comprising in Khasra No.47//6/1 min measuring (0-19) biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Mamoorpur, Narela, Delhi-110040 (hereafter the subject land) as lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter the 2013 Act).

2. The petitioner claims that he has neither received the compensation for the subject land, nor has the Land Acquisition Collector (hereafter the LAC) taken over the possession of the subject land. He also submits that the acquisition in respect of the part of the subject land comprising in same RAWAL Khasra number is the subject matter of another petition which was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 02.08.2016 (Suresh Kumar v Union of India & Ors: Neutral Citation: 2016: DHC:5458-DB). The said judgment reads as under: “1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain on behalf of the respondent no.4 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as the necessary averments are contained in the writ petition.

2. 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 referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) and in respect of which Award No.28/2003-04 dated 17.02.2004 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in khasra nos. 47//5 min (2-08), 47//6/1 min (2-6), 47//6/2 min (0-02), 48//10/1 min (0-11) measuring 5 bighas 7 biswas in village Mamoorpur, Narela, Delhi, 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 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.

RAWAL (ii)Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and

4. 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.

5. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.”

3. The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (LAC) had filed an appeal against the said judgment before the Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) No.4350/2023, which was rejected by an order dated 27.02.2023. The Supreme Court held that “taking into consideration para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC before the High Court, no interference of this Court is called for”.

4. The additional affidavit filed by the LAC affirms that neither the possession of the subject land was taken over nor the compensation was paid. However, it is contended on behalf of the LAC that possession could not be taken over on the ground of the stay order passed in W.P.(C) No.6970-7053/2004. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the LAC has also referred to the record of the land acquisition proceedings conducted on 08.09.2004. The said proceedings indicate the possession was “not taken due to CWP No. 6970-7053/2004 of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi”. RAWAL

5. The petitioner has filed the copy of the order dated 07.05.2004 whereby the W.P.(C) No.6970-7053/2004 was disposed of. The order dated 07.05.2004 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court reads as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to make representations under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the authorities concerned for denotification of the subject lands. The writ petitions and the applications are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. We hope and expect that as and when such representations are made, the same shall be dealt with as expeditiously as practicable.”

6. It is apparent from the above, the writ petition referred to by the LAC in its affidavit, was disposed of prior to 08.09.2004. Thus, there was no impediment for the LAC to take possession of the subject land on 08.09.2004. The entire case of the LAC rests on premise that there was stay order, which prevented it from taking over the possession of the subject land. The said assumption is incorrect.

7. In view of the above, the present petition is required to be considered on the basis that neither the compensation was paid to the petitioner nor the possession of the subject land was taken over. Thus, both the conditions as stipulated in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, are satisfied.