Tarlok Singh & ORS v. Lt. Governor Of Delhi & ORS

$-65

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 30.11.2015 W.P.(C1 2857/2015 & 5129/2015 TARLOK SINGH AND ORS Petitioners versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS.

Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case;

For the Petitioners : Ms Esha Mazumdar with Mr Setu Niket For the Respondent LAC/L&B: Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi For the Respondent DDA : 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 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 Page I of3 By:AMULYA

Act') and in respect of which Award No.29/2002-03 dated 01.11.2002 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 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 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 Am v.

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

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

(2014) 6 see 564;

(iii) Sree Balaii Naear Residential Association 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.: W.P.(e) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court.

3.

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. 4.

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

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