Full Text
JUDGMENT
KARTARI DEVI & OTHERS … Petitioners
Advocates who appeared in this case:- For the Petitioners : Mr N.S. Chechi
For the Respondent/UoI : Mr Vivekanand Mishra with Mr Rishabh Sahu
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Mr Hem Kumar
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
1. The petitioners seek 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:433-DB
2. The number of the award is 21/1992-93 and is dated 18.06.1992. It is in respect of, inter alia, the petitioners’ land comprised in Khasra NO. 426 min (2-12) and 432 min (5-10), measuring 8 bigha 2 biswas in all in village Jasola, Delhi. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that physical possession is with them. However, it is stated by the learned counsel for the LAC that physical possession was taken on 19.01.2006. It is also stated that the land is to be utilised for channelization of river Yamuna. Compensation has, however, not been paid to the petitioners.
3. Although physical possession of the subject land is disputed, the compensation has not been paid to the petitioners and the award was 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. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioners disputes that physical possession has been taken, he submits that the petitioners are not claiming the return of the land and would be satisfied, if compensation is given to the petitioners under the 2013 Act. This is a fair and very reasonable approach adopted on behalf of the petitioners. 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 petitioners 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 JANUARY 24, 2017 dutt