Full Text
JUDGMENT
RAM JIWANI .... Petitioner
For the Petitioner : Ms Meenu Handa For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
1. The petitioner seeks 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. A declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceeding, which is the subject- matter of the present petition, ought to be deemed to have lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 2017:DHC:853-DB
2. The number of the award is 8/2008-09 and is dated 16.02.2009. It is in respect of, inter alia, the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra No.23//25 (4-07) measuring 4 bighas 07 biswas in village Bakoli. Admittedly, physical possession of the subject land was taken on 22.11.2010. The said land has been utilized by DDA by its engineering department. Admittedly, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner.
3. Although physical possession of the subject land has admittedly been taken, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and the award was also made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Consequently, all the necessary ingredients of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following decisions, 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: 2015 (3) SCC 353; (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.
4. The inevitable conclusion would be that the acquisition proceedings would have to be declared as having lapsed. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the land has already been utilized, the petitioner is not claiming the return of the land and would be satisfied, if compensation is given to the petitioner under the 2013 Act. This is a fair and very reasonable approach adopted on behalf of the petitioner. It also enables the respondents to retain the land for the purpose for which it was sought to have been acquired without going through an entirely new acquisition process. Therefore, we direct that the compensation be paid to the petitioner in terms of the 2013 Act. The same be done within six months.
5. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J FEBRUARY 13, 2017 ab