Tarlok Singh v. Lt. Governor of Delhi

Delhi High Court · 30 Nov 2015 · 2015:DHC:11523-DB
Badar Durrez Ahmed; Sanjeev Sachdeva
W.P.(C) 2857/2015 & 5129/2015
2015:DHC:11523-DB
property petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse if not completed within five years without possession or compensation, applying Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act retrospectively.

Full Text
Translation output
$-65 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
delivered on:30.11.2015 W.P.(C1 2857/2015& 5129/2015
TARLOK SINGH AND ORS Petitioners
versus
LT.GOVERNOR OFDELHIAND ORS. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case;
For the Petitioners :MsEsha Mazumdar with Mr Setu Niket
Forthe RespondentLAC/L&B:Mr Yeeshu Jain with MsJyoti Tyagi
Forthe RespondentDDA :Mr Dhanesh Relan with Mr Arush Bhandari
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED.J(ORAL)

1. By way ofthis writ petition the petitioners seek the benefit ofSection 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. The petitioners, consequently, seek a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 WP(C)2857/2015 Page I of[3] 2015:DHC:11523-DB Act')and in respect ofwhich Award No.29/2002-03 dated 01.11.2002 was made,inter alia,in respectofthe petitioners'land comprised in KhasraNos. 24/22(1-5),25/16(3-18),36/1 (0-18),36/1 (0-10),36/1 (1-3),35/7(0-11), 24/22(1-4) and 35/7(1-0) measuring 10 bighas 9 biswas in all in village Shahbad Daulatpur,Delhi,shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the subject lands has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioners. The award was made more than five years priorto the commencementofthe 2013 Act. Allthe ingredients of section 24(2)ofthe 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Courtin the following decisions stand satisfied:-

(i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Am v.

(ii) Union ofIndia and Ors v. Shiv Rai and Ors:

(iii) Sree BalaiiNaear ResidentialAssociation v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: eivil Appeal NO. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;and

(iv) Surender Sin2h v. Union of India and Ors.:

3. As a result the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the said acquisition proceedingsinitiated underthe 1894 Actin respectofthe subject lands are deemed to have lapsed. Itis so declared.

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

NOVEMBER 30,2015 kb BADAR DURREZ AHMED,J SANJEEV SACHDEVA,J