Full Judgment Text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 24.09.2014
W.P.(C) 1389/2014, CMs 2899/2014 & CM 15226/2014
ANIL KUMAR JAIN AND ORS. …..Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …..Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr T.N.Singh, Mr Vikas K.Singh and Mr H.L.Srivastava.
For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for L&B/LAC.
Mr Ajay Verma for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
J U D G M E N T
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the subject lands are
liable to be declared as being free from acquisition in view of the provisions
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’). He places reliance on recent decisions of this
court in Surender Singh v. Union of India & Ors. : WP(C) No.2294/2014
WP(C) 1389/2014 Page 1 of 3
decided on 12.09.2014 and Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and
Ors. : WP(C) No.2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014. The learned counsel for
the petitioners points out that the award being Award No.6/2005-06 dated
12.07.2005 was made more than five years prior to the commencement of
the 2013 Act which commenced on 01.01.2014. He also states that part of
the land in question, namely, Khasra No.49/12 and 49/13 have been taken in
possession by the respondent on 31.08.2005 whereas the balance part of 10
biswas out of the very same Khasra has not been taken in possession as also
the land in Khasra No.49/9/2 has not been taken in possession due to the fact
that the said area was built-up. He also states that compensation has not been
paid as yet.
2. These facts are admitted by the respondents except by the learned
counsel for the DDA, who states that the possession of the part land could
not be taken because of the pendency of a Special Leave Petition No.12534-
611/2007 titled as Subhash Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which is
pending before the Supreme Court and in which a stay order has been
passed. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, states that the
petitioners were not party to that SLP.
WP(C) 1389/2014 Page 2 of 3
3. Be that as it may, even if, we treat the possession in respect of the said
land as being taken, admittedly, compensation has not been paid.
Consequently, in view of the said decisions referred to above, the petitioners
are entitled to the benefit of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and it is declared
that the acquisition in respect of the subject land, namely, Khasra No.49/9/2
Min. 1 bigha, Khasra No.49/12 Min. 3 bighas and Khasra No.49/13 Min. 1
bigha in Village- Pehladpur Bangar, has lapsed. The writ petition is allowed
to this extent. There shall be no order as to costs
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
mk
WP(C) 1389/2014 Page 3 of 3