SHRI SUBHASH CHANDER SACHDEVA AND ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

1. By way of this writ petition the petitioners seek the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in 2016:DHC:6892-DB Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “2013 Act”) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioners, consequently, seek a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “1894 Act”) and in respect of which Award Nos. 32/1981-82 and 110/1986-87 dated 07.11.1981 and 19.09.1986, respectively were made, inter alia, in respect of the land comprised in khasra nos. 206/2 (5-16), 207/2 (6-02), 208/2 (2-02), 209 (4-07), 210/2 (11-16) and 211/2 (0-17) measuring 311 bighas in all, in village Basai Darapur, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. In this case, it has been admitted by the concerned Land Acquisition Collector that physical possession of the subject land has not been taken. This is evident from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the concerned Land Acquisition Collector. It is, however, contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the amount of compensation in respect of the same was deposited in the treasury, though the same has not been paid to the land owners nor was it offered to the land owners.

3. That being the position, the question of payment of compensation Corrected by order dated 15.11.2016. will have to be construed in the light of various decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and this Court in:-

(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand

(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of

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

2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court. In Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), it has been held that unless and until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere deposit of compensation amount in a court would not amount to payment of compensation. This aspect has also been considered in Gyanender Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others: WP (C) 1393/2014 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.09.2014. The same would be the position in respect of a deposit in the treasury.

4. As such, in the present case, neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken by the land acquiring agency nor have they paid compensation to the land owners. According to the respondents, the same could not be done because of the stay operating till 15.04.2004 in W.P.(C) 2677/1981 and W.P.(C) 697/1983 on which date the acquisition itself was quashed. However this aspect of the matter was considered in Jagjit Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 2806/2004 and other connected matters which were decided by this court on 27.05.2014. The same has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Jagjit Singh and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2592/2015 decided on 27.02.2015. Therefore, the stay would, in any case, not operate in favour of the respondents in view of the said decisions. In any event, there was no stay from 2004 till the date on which the 2013 Act came into effect i.e., on 01.01.2014. Therefore, this plea is not available to the respondents even on facts. The award was made clearly more than five years prior to 01.01.2004.

5. We may point out at this juncture that there is a title dispute between the petitioners on the one hand, and Jhang Biradari Housing Residents Society (petitioners in W.P.(C) 8964/2015), which is pending before this court. The title dispute as also the dispute with regard to the possession between these parties is pending in CS(OS) 1449/2011. However, that suit has now been transferred to the district court at Tis Hazari. We are making it clear that the present writ petition has only been examined from the stand point of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and no decision by us can be or is being rendered with regard to either title or possession insofar as the inter se dispute between the petitioners herein and the said society is concerned. That is the subject matter of the suit pending before the district court.

6. It is, however, declared that the acquisition in respect of the subject land initiated under the 1894 Act is deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

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

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J OCTOBER 04, 2016 kb