Full Text
W.P.(C) 5478/2015 «& CM No.9847/2015
GULAB SINGH & ANR Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjay Parikh with Mr. Aagney Sail and Ms. Maulshree Pathak, Advs.
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for L&B/LAC.
Mr. Abhishek Pundir and Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Advs. for DSIIDC.
NIRANJAN SINGH & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjay Parikh with Mr. Aagney Sail and Ms. Maulshree Pathak, Advs.
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for L&B/LAC.
Mr. Abhishek Pundir and Ms. Anusuya Salwan, Advs. for DSIIDC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
03.08.2017 W.P.(C) Nos.5478/2015 & 7150/2015 Page I of3
2017:DHC:8175-DB
ORDER
1. Both these writ petitions were heard separately but are being disposed ofby a common order.
2. It is not disputed in these cases that the petitioners claim declaration that the acquisition oftheir lands has lapsed in view ofSection 24(2) ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter referred to as "the Act"). The record would show that the award was made on 26.05.2008. The respondents rely upon possession proceedings to say that possession was taken; the petitioners, however, dispute this by stating that even though the proceedings record on the one hand that possession of 142805 bighas was taken, atthe same time itis recorded that there was standing crop.
3. Counsel for the respondent - L&B/LAC submits that the occupation of the land was temporary afterpossession was taken over in law andthat if petitioners' occupation is to be construed as possession, it is merely possessive possession.
4. This Court notices, at the outset, that the facts of the present case are identical to those in W.P.(C) No.5395/2015 decided on 21.02.2017 titled Jai Kishan &Anr. v. Government ofNCTofDelhi &Ors. In this judgment, the Court had held that those who received compensation and Special Rehabilitation Package could not claim the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Act. This is irrespective of the controversy of possession; the Court was of the opinion that said land owners had given up their rights to claim further entitlement under the New Act. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed inview ofthe judgment in W.P.(C) No.5395/2015 dated 21.02.2017 titled Jai Kishan & Anr. v. W.P.(C) Nos.5478/2015 &7150/2015 Page 2of[3] Govt. ofNCTofDelhi & Ors.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
5. P«ARG, fV.P.(C) Nos.5478/2015 & 7150/2015 Page3of[3]