Surender Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

1. Mr Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, states that the counter-affidavit has been filed but the same has not been placed on record. We direct the Registry to place the same on record. We have seen a copy of the counter-affidavit. The rejoinder/affidavit has already been filed by the counsel for the petitioner. 2016:DHC:5122-DB

2. In this 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 referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that the acquisition proceedings, which were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) have lapsed because the ingredients of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act stand satisfied. The acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act resulted in Award No. 1/2007-08 dated 06.08.2007 and this was in respect of, inter alia, the petitioner’s land in khasra Nos. 5//24(4-0), 25/1(1-09) and 35//5 min 1 (0-16) measuring 6 bighas and 5 biswas in all in village Bamnoli. To be clear, the petitioner claims a 1/4th share in the first two khasra numbers and a full share in the last of the three khasra numbers mentioned above.

3. Insofar as khasra Nos. 5//24 and 25/1 are concerned, the position that obtained is that while the petitioner claims that physical possession is with the petitioner, the respondents, on the other hand, claim that physical possession was taken on 14.09.2007. Therefore, the issue with regard to possession remains disputed. Insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, admittedly, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner in respect of these two khasra numbers.

4. With regard to khasra No. 35//5 min 1, admittedly, physical possession has not been taken from the petitioner and the same is with the petitioner. Compensation has also not been paid to the petitioner, as admitted by the respondents.

5. Insofar as khasra Nos. 5//24 and 25/1 are concerned, the position is clear that compensation has not been paid and that possession is disputed. The Award was also made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. In the case of khasra No. 35//5 min 1, neither possession has been taken nor has compensation been paid, as indicated above. The Award, obviously, is more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Thus, in respect of the 1/4th share of the petitioner in the khasra Nos. 5//24 and 25/1 and the full share in khasra No. 35//5 min 1, the acquisition under the 1894 Act is deemed to have lapsed in view of the following decisions:- (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: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; (4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court;

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

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J JULY 21, 2016 V. KAMESWAR RAO, J SR