Narender Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India & ORS
$29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 25.05.2015 + W.P.(C) 8208/2014 & CM 19090/2014 NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents Advocates who appeared in this ca .jI1 For the Petitioner Mr Dhananjay Mehiawat For the RespondentUOT Mi Vikas Mahajan For the Respondent Nos 2,4&5 Mr Sanjay-Kumar Pathak with Mr Surni Kumar Jha ind Mr Kushal Raj Tater For the Respondent DDA Mi Dhinesh Relan with Mr Arush Bhandari CORAM - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BAD RDDURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORA
1. The petitioner seeks 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. Consequently, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land By:AMULYA W. P. (C) No.8208/20/4
r41 Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') and in respect of which Award No. 1/1998-99 dated 24.04.1998 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in khasra no. 247 measuring 1 bighas 1 biswas in village Shahbad Daulatpur, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. It is an admitted position that neither the physical possession of the subject land has been taken byf the land acquiring agency, nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that a ftesh .\ard has been made in respect of the petitioners land on 19.03.2015. The facts are that after the Award was made on 24.04.1998 5 the pétithner did not challenge the same. However, some other peNonshad cha1lene d the acquisition and the invocation of the emergency provision under section 1 7 by virtue of WPC No. 3938/1996. This court dismissed that rit petition on 09.07.2007. Thereafter, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court which ultimately quashed the invocation of section 17 as also the section 6 declaration by an order dated 31.03.2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3022-3023/2012. However, the benefit of the Supreme Court judgement was specifically limited to the parties who were present before the Supreme Court. The W.P.(C) No.820812014
petitioner had not challenged the acquisition proceedings and was therefore not a party before the Supreme Court. Thus, insofar as the petitioner is concerned the Award dated 24.09.98 was final. The petitioner could not even take the benefit of the Supreme decision as the same was not available to him.
3. In these circumstances the subsequent section 6 declaration (after the Supreme Court decision) andthe Award dated 19 03 2015 would not relate to the petitioner's case It is, therefore, clear that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the Award was made on 24 04'1908 and it was clearly made more than five years prior to the coming into effect of the 2013 Act Since the physical pdssession of the subject land has not been taken nor the compensation been paid to the petitioner, 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:- b ___________________ (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 Naar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;
W.P.(C) No. 820812014
it
(4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 229412014 decided on 12.09.20 14 by this Court; and
4. As a result, the petitioner is 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. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent There shall be Ar no order as to costs BDAR DURREZ ARMED, J SANK IV SACHDEVA, J MAY 25, 2015 kb W.P.(C) No. 82