W.P.(C)/3535/2014 of SATPAL RANA AND ORS Vs STATE AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 01.10.2014

W.P.(C) 3535/2014 & CM No.7223/2014

SATPAL RANA & ORS

..... Petitioners

versus

STATE AND ANR

..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Petitioners : Ms R.S. Bokde, Advocate For the Respondents

: Mr Hasmat Nabi, Advocate for UOI Mr Yeeshu Jain, Advocate with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for LAC Mr Arjun Pant, Advocate for DDA

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

J U M N T

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1.The petitioners claim that the subject acquisition has lapsed because of the deeming provisions 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’).

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following Supreme Court decisions: (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;and very recent decision of the Supreme Court in (3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014 and also on the decisions of this Court in Surinder

Singh vs. Union of India and Ors.:W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 and Girish Chhabra vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011decided on 12.09.2014. The admitted position is that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioners in respect of the land in question. While the petitioners are claiming that possession has not been taken over by the respondent. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent who states that the possession was taken over on 12.09.2007. The Award was made on 06.08.2008 (Award No.1/2007-2008). The Award was, inter alia, in respect of 5 bighas 12 biswas of land in Khasra Nos.28//8 and 9/1.

3.Since the Award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and compensation has also not, admittedly, been paid to the petitioners, in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted in the above-mentioned decisions, and the acquisition in respect of the aforesaid land shall be deemed to have lapsed. We have not gone into the question of possession as it was not necessary for us to do so.

4.The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extend. There shall be no order as to costs. The pending applications also stand disposed of.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

OCTOBER 01, 2014 dn

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J