Full Judgment Text
$~58
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 23.02.2016
+ W.P.(C) 8375/2015 & CM 17813/2013
DINESH GAUTAM AND ANR ... Petitioners
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr Vishal Maan
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Siddharth Panda
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Siddharth Panda on
behalf of respondent nos. 1&2 is taken on record. The learned counsel
for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and
W.P.(C) No.8375/2015 Page 1 of 5
reiterates the contents of the writ petition in response to the said counter
affidavit.
2. By way of this writ petition 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. The
petitioners, consequently, seek a declaration that the acquisition
proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as the “1894 Act”) and in respect of which Award No.
15/1987-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia , in respect of the
petitioners’ land, to the extent of 1 bigha only comprised in Khasra Nos.
1785/1-2 min and 1788/1-2 min in village Chattarpur, New Delhi, shall
be deemed to have lapsed.
3. In this case, it has been admitted by the concerned Land
Acquisition Collector that physical possession of the subject land has not
been taken. This is evident from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of
the concerned Land Acquisition Collector. It is, however, contended by
the learned counsel for the respondents that the amount of compensation
in respect of the same was deposited in the treasury, though the same has
W.P.(C) No.8375/2015 Page 2 of 5
not been paid to the land owner nor was it offered to the land owner. This
would not amount to compensation having been paid.
4. As such, in the present case, neither physical possession of the
subject land has been taken nor has any compensation been paid to the
petitioners. The Award was made more than five years prior to the
coming into force of the 2013 Act. Therefore, in view of the following
decisions of the Supreme Court and this court, the necessary ingredients
for attracting the deeming provision of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
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 : 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; and
(5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors :
WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
W.P.(C) No.8375/2015 Page 3 of 5
5. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the
present petition is not maintainable because the petitioners are subsequent
purchasers. While it is true that, in the context of the 1894 Act, the
Supreme Court has held that a subsequent purchaser would not have a
right to challenge the acquisition and would only have a right to
compensation, we are of the view that the present petition, as it now
stands is not a challenge to the acquisition proceeding but a petition
seeking declaration of rights which had accrued to the petitioners by
virtue of the deeming provision of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Once
the acquisition has lapsed because of the triggering of the deeming
provision of section 24(2) of the 2013, Act, the benefit of the same cannot
be denied to the petitioners on the ground that they are subsequent
purchasers.
6. As a result, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the said
acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the
subject lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
W.P.(C) No.8375/2015 Page 4 of 5
7. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
R.K. GAUBA, J
FEBRUARY 23, 2016
kb
W.P.(C) No.8375/2015 Page 5 of 5