Surinder Yadav And ANR. v. Land Acquisition Collector (North) And ANR.

$~105 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 13.10.2015 W.P.(C) 2129/2015 & CM No. 3832/2015 SURINDER YADAV AND ANR.

..... Petitioners versus LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (NORTH) AND ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners : Mr Anuroop P.S. Advocate For the Respondents : Mr Mohit Khubchandani with Mr Nikhil Rohatgi, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

J U D G M E N T

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1.

The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain on behalf of respondent no. 1 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as the necessary averments are already contained in the writ petition.

2.

By way of this writ petition the petitioners are seeking 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.33/78-79 dated 19.12.1978 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1160 (3 bighas and 3 biswas) situated in Village Bhalaswa Jahangirpuri, New Delhi shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3.

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 prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following decisions stand satisfied:- (i) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v.

Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183;

(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:

(2014) 6 SCC 564;

(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No.

8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(iv) Surinder Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.:

W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court.

4.

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. 5.

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

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J OCTOBER 13, 2015 rs