Giani & ORS. v. State And ORS.

$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 22.02.2016 + W.P.(C) 498/2015 & CM No.856/2015 (directions) GIANI & ORS.

.... Petitioners versus STATE AND ORS.

..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners :

Mr Rahul Gupta with Mr Shekhar Gupta, Advocates. For the Respondents :

Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

Ms Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1.

The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain on behalf of respondent No.2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and reiterates the contents of the writ petition.

2.

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 seek a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which Award No.28/02-03 dated 24.10.2002 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprising Khasra Nos.53//2/2 (1-18), 4(0-05) and 7 (0-06) measuring 2 bighas 9 biswas in all in village Bijwasan has lapsed. 3.

Insofar as Khasra Nos.4 & 7 are concerned, it is an admitted position that possession in respect thereof has not been taken by the land acquiring agency and physical possession of the same is with the petitioners. Insofar as Khasra Nos.53//2/2 is concerned, admittedly, 1 biswa of land has not been taken possession of by the land acquiring agency. There are, however, disputed claims with regard to the physical possession of the remaining 1 bigha 17 Biswas of land. 4.

The position with regard to the compensation is that the same has admittedly not been paid to the petitioners.

5.

Without going into the controversy with regard to the physical possession insofar as 1 bigha - 17 biswas of land in Khasra No.53//2/2 is concerned, it is clear that the award was made more than 5 years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and that compensation has also not been paid to the petitioners.

6.

All the necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in, inter alia, the following decisions 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. 7.

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 land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared. 8.

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

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J FEBRUARY 22nd, 2016 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J st