Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 1st AUGUST, 2017
RIPPLE KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Sumi Anand & Mr.Prateek Kohli, Advocates.
Through : Mr.Roshan Lal Goel & Ms.Anju Gupta, Advocates for UOI.
Ms.Astha Tyagi, Advocate with Ms.Sujatha Bagadhi & Ms.Urmiljeet Kaur, Advocates for
L&B/LAC.
Ms.Niharika Ahluwalia, Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J. (OPEN COURT)
JUDGMENT
1. Learned counsel for the Govt. of NCT of Delhi through LAC seeks liberty to place on record the counter-affidavit. Liberty granted. Counter-affidavit is taken on record.
2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner claims herself to be recorded owner of the land bearing Khasra No.673/1 admeasuring 1415 sq. yd. situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’) by virtue of Agreement to Sell and registered General Power of 2017:DHC:4132-DB Attorney dated 13.12.2004. The petitioner’s claim is that acquisition of her land has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
3. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old Act) was issued on 05.11.1980; it included the suit land. A declaration was issued under Section 6 on 21.05.1985. The award bearing No.12/87-88 dated 20.05.1987 was made by the Land Acquisition Collector.
4. The petitioner avers that pursuant to the award, neither physical possession of the suit land was taken over by the respondents nor any compensation in respect thereof was ever paid or tendered. Relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., 2014 (3) SCC 183, counsel urged that the acquisition has lapsed since five year period indicated in Section 24(2) of the Act has ended.
5. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi through LAC, in its counteraffidavit, states in Paras (7 & 8):
6. It is evident that neither possession of the suit lands was taken over nor any compensation for acquisition of the suit land was tendered or paid to the recorded owner(s).
7. The Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation case (supra) dealt with the issue, i.e. as to whether compensation amount has to be actually paid, or deposited. That decision clarified that mere deposit of the amount in the Treasury would not fulfill requirement of Section 24(2) and that there should be a positive step to appropriate the concerned amount and make it available to the land owner, i.e. by way of payment under Section 31(2) of the old Act, or by deposit of the compensation in Court.
8. As the respondents have not denied that the compensation of the suit lands has not been paid and its possession has not been taken, the petitioner is entitled to the declaration sought. Accordingly, it is held that acquisition of suit land in Khasra No.673/1 admeasuring 1415 sq. yd. vide award No.12/87-88 dated 20.05.1987 is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act.
9. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. S.P.GARG JUDGE)
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE) AUGUST 01, 2017 / tr