Rajesh Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

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 Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

2. The number of the award is 1934-D/81-82 and is dated 19.10.1981. It is in respect of, inter alia, the petitioners’ land comprised in Khasra Nos. 16 (2-08), 17 (0-13), 18/2 (2-02), 19/1/2 (1-16), 19/2/2 (0-12), 29/1 2016:DHC:5464-DB (0-18), 31/1 (1-05), 32/1/2 (2-14), 37/1 min (3-12), 38/1 (6-00), 39 (4-06) & 41 (3-04) measuring 29 bighas 10 biswas in village Molar Band. Admittedly, physical possession of the subject land was taken on 10.04.1997. The said land has been utilized for a Multi Storey Housing Complex. Admittedly, compensation has not been paid to the petitioners.

3. Although physical possession of the subject land has admittedly been taken, 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. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as physical possession of the land has been taken and the same has already been utilised for a housing complex, 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 AUGUST 02, 2016 ab