Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
SARITA JAIN ..... Petitioner
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms Iti Sharma with Mr Puneet Sharma
For the Respondent LAC/L&B : Mr Siddharth Panda with Mr P. Venkatesan
For the Respondent DDA : Ms Shobhana Takiar with Mr Udayan Khandelwal
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this matter is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Girish Chhabra vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014. He states that although possession of the subject land has been taken, the award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation 2016:DHC:4233-DB WP(C) 3859/2015 and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’), which came into effect on 01.01.2014. In this case Award No.14/1992-93 was made on 19.06.1992. He also states that compensation has not yet been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have been fulfilled and the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is situated in Village Kilokri, Delhi, in Khasra No.530/1/2 measuring to the extent of 1 bigha in all.
2. Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has been taken on 09.02.2007, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. The Award is also more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Consequently, the decision of this Court in Girish Chhabra (supra) applies on all fours and the subject acquisition has lapsed.
3. The writ petition is allowed by declaring that the acquisition in respect of the subject land has lapsed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MAY 23, 2016 kb