Simla Devi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

1. At the outset, Ms.Luthra, learned Senior Counsel submits, on instructions, that land of the petitioner Janak Rani, mentioned at serial no.6 in Khasra No.58 pertains to only 1 bigha and not 1 bigha 6 biswas as reflected in the writ petition.

2. The petitioners, who are ten (10) in number seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land 2018:DHC:839-DB Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act which came into effect on January 1, 2014 (2013 Act). A declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as the „1894 Act‟) in respect of which Award No. 15/1992-93 dated 19th June, 1992 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners‟ land comprised in the following Khasra numbers deemed to have lapsed.

1. Smt. Shimla Devi w/o Shri P.D.Jain Khasra No.58 1-0

2. Smt. Savitri Devi w/o Shri Inder Das Khasra No.57 1-0

3. M/s Pyare Lal & Sons (HUF) through Karta Mr.Rajesh Bansal Khasra No.62 1-0

4. Mr.Deepak Garg s/o Shri Prem Kumar Khasra No.58 1-0

5. Dr.Arun Gupta s/o Shri Manohar Lal Khasra No.62 1-0

6. Smt.Janak Rani Khasra No.58 1

7. Mr.J.Aggarwal Madhu Bansal Shashi Goel Rupesh Gupta Arun Gupta (the above five persons) are the legal heirs of Manohar Lal (now deceased) and owned 1/5 each of Khasra No.64 Khasra No. 64 1-0 Khasra No. 64

3. Though, the LAC in its counter-affidavit claim that possession of the land in question has been taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department on 21st April, 2006, the petitioners‟ dispute this and maintain the physical possession has not been taken over. However, insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is stated as per statement “A” compensation was not paid to the recorded owner.

4. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, it 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.

5. 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.

6. An argument has also been raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition by the petitioners.

7. We would also like to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Manav Dharam Trust & Ors., 2017 6 SCC 751, wherein in para 26 Supreme Court has held as under: