Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th JULY , 2017
PARMOD JAIN & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr.Prateek Kohli, Advocate.
Through : Mr.Roshan Lal Goel, Advocate with Ms.Anju Gupta, Advocate for UOI.
Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Singh, Advocate for DDA.
Mr.Siddharth Panda, Advocate for L&B/LAC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J. (OPEN COURT)
JUDGMENT
1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – 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 petitioners claim themselves to be owners on the basis of registered General Power of Attorney executed in their favour along with Agreement to Sell dated 09.03.2005 in respect of land of Khasra No. 670, 673/1 & 673/2 admeasuring 1156 sq.yards situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Neb Sarai, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The petitioners’ claim is that acquisition of their lands (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit 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. The necessary facts are that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (old Act) was issued on 05.11.1980; it included 2017:DHC:3604-DB 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 petitioners aver 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 counter-affidavit, significantly makes the following admission in Para (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 land in Khasra No. 670, 673/1 & 673/2 has not been paid and its possession has not been taken, in the present case, the petitioners are entitled to the declaration sought to that extent. Accordingly, it is held that acquisition of suit land in Khasra No. 670, 673/1 & 673/2 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) JULY 17, 2017 / tr