Indu Arora v. Union of India and Ors.

1. The counter affidavit handed over by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and places reliance on the averments already made in the writ petition.

2. 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 2016:DHC:6459-DB 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 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) and in respect of which Award No. 60/1971-72(Suppl.) dated 31.03.1977 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra Nos. 455/192/2/5 (0-17) (to the extent of ½ share therein) in village Gharonda Neem Ka Bangar, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3. While the petitioner claimed that neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioner, these facts are controverted by the respondents and, in particular, by the respondent no.4. It is the case of the said respondent no.4 that possession of the subject land was taken on 01.10.1976 and has been handed over to the DDA on the spot for the planned development of Delhi. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to page 40 of the paper book which is a copy of a letter written by the Station House Officer of police station Pandav Nagar, Delhi, clearly indicating that the subject property was taken on rent for the said police station from, inter alia, the petitioner and that vacant possession was being offered to the petitioner inasmuch as a separate police station had been constructed. This letter was written on 06.03.2014. Clearly, therefore, physical possession of the subject land was not with the Land Acquisition Collector or with the DDA.

4. It is also stated by the petitioner that no compensation was received in respect of the subject land. The counter affidavit which has been furnished on behalf of the respondent no.4 indicates that the compensation register was missing and thus the status as to the payment of compensation could not be ascertained. However, efforts were being continued to trace the said register. It is also stated in the said affidavit that there is no entry regarding payment of compensation in the naksha muntzamin. In view of this, there is no evidence on record to contradict the plea taken by the petitioner that compensation has not been paid in respect of the subject land. Therefore, the present case is clearly one where neither physical possession of the subject land was 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. 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)

5. 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.

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

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 kb