BRAHM SINGH @ BRAHM PARKASH v. For the

Delhi High Court · 2017:DHC:1495-DB
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED; HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO; BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
Civil Appeal NO. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; and
2017:DHC:1495-DB
property petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession and compensation are not completed within five years.

Full Text
Translation output
WP(C) 11881/2015
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
delivered on: 14.03.2017
W.P.(C) 11881/2015 & CM 31582/2015
BRAHM SINGH @ BRAHM PARKASH ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms Richa Oberoi with Mr Prateek Kohli
For the Respondent UOI : Mr Chiranjiv Kumar For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Ms Ruchika Rathi
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Dhanesh Relan with Ms Isha Garg
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. 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 2017:DHC:1495-DB under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) and in respect of which Award No. 6D/Suppl./1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in khasra no. 509/251 (8-09) measuring 8 bigha 09 biswas in village Jasola, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. 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.

(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal NO. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; and

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.:

3. 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.

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

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J