W.P.(C)/7102/2014 of RAVINDER KUMAR AHUJA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: 01.12.2014

W.P.(C) 7102/2014 & CM No.16653/2014 (Stay)RAVINDER KUMAR AHUJA

..... Petitioner

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Petitioner: Mr S.K. Rout, AdvocateFor the Respondents: Mr Siddharth Panda, Advocate for R-1 & R-2Mr Pawan Mathur, Advocate for R-3

CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMEDHON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

J U M N T

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1.The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1 has been handedover to us by Mr Siddharth Panda, the learned counsel appearing on behalfof respondent Nos.1 and 2. The same is taken on record.

2.By way of this writ petition the petitioner is seeking the benefit ofsection 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred

to as ‘the 2013 Act’) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. Consequently,the petitioner seeks declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiatedunder the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894Act’) and in respect of which Award No.15/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 wasmade, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in KhasraNos.1570/1 (3-18), 1571/1 (3-18), 1732/1 (2-8), 1733/1/1 (0-13), 1733/1/2(0-15), 1737/1 (3-12), 1732/2 (2-8) and 1737/2 (1-4) measuring 18 bighas 16biswas in Village Chattarpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.

3.The learned counsel for the respondents and in particular the learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector states thatKhasra No.1737 has not been acquired at all. He states that though it wasmentioned in the Section 4 notification under the 1894 Act, it was not part ofthe Award. Therefore, insofar as Khasra No.1737 is concerned, it is clearthat the said Khasra was never acquired and the question of any deemedlapsing of an acquisition proceeding does not arise.Hence, we areconsidering this writ petition after excluding any reference to KhasraNo.1737.

4.It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of thesubject lands has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any

compensation been paid to the petitioner. The award was made more thanfive years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients ofsection 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and thisCourt in the following decisions stand satisfied:-

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

(ii)Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors:(2014) 6 SCC 564;(2014) 6 SCC 564;

(iii)Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. Stateof Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;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 thisCourt.W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by thisCourt.

5.As result the petitioner is entitled to declaration that the saidacquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subjectlands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

6.The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be noorder as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

DECEMBER 01, 2014dn

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J