Full Text
JUDGMENT
AJAY SHARMA ... Petitioner
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr B.S. Maan with Mr Vishal Maan & Mr Shitiz
Agnihotri.
For the LAC/L&B : Mr Siddharth Panda.
For the DDA : Mr Pawan Mathur.
Mr Nitin Mishra for applicant in CM 27484/2016.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
1. By way of this writ petition 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 2016:DHC:5650 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. 14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land, comprised in Khasra No. 245 (3-16) measuring 3 bighas and 16 biswas in all, in Village Satbari, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed. It is pertinent to point out, at this juncture, that there is a dispute with regard to the title over the said land between the petitioner on the one hand and respondent nos.4B, 4C and 4D on the other. We are not getting into this issue of title and that would have to be sorted out before an appropriate court of law. In the present petition, we are only concerned with the acquisition proceedings.
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 owner nor was it offered to the land owner.
3. That being the position, the question of payment of compensation will have to be construed in the light of the 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 the 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. Consequently, the mere deposit in the treasury, without being offered or tendered to the persons entitled would not ipso facto amount to payment of compensation.
4. As such, in the present case, neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor has any compensation been paid to the land owners. The Award was made more than five years prior to the coming into force of the 2013 Act.
5. As a result, the owners (whether they be the petitioner or the respondent nos.4B, 4C and 4D), are 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 AUGUST 09, 2016 ab