W.P.(C)/2857/2015 of TARLOK SINGH & ORS Vs LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS
Parties
- TARLOK SINGH AND ORS (PETITIONER)
- LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS (RESPONDENT)
Cites (0 resolved of 1 detected)
1 case citation detected in this judgment's own text, but none resolved to a judgment page in this build yet.
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
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 NiketFor the Respondent LAC/L&B: Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti TyagiFor the Respondent DDA : Mr Dhanesh Relan with Mr Arush Bhandari
CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMEDHON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENTBADAR 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 LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referredto as 'the 2013 Act') which came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioners,consequently, seek declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiatedunder the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894
Act') and in respect of which Award No.29/2002-03 dated 01.11.2002 wasmade, 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 villageShahbad Daulatpur, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.2. It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of thesubject lands has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has anycompensation been paid to the petitioners. 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) Pune Municipal Corporation and Am v.Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3see 183;Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3see 183;
(ii) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Rai and Ors:(2014) 6 see 564;(2014) 6 see 564;
(iii) Sree Balaii Naear Residential Association v. Stateof Tamil Nadu and Ors: eivil Appeal No.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; andof 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 thisCourt.W.P.(e) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by thisCourt.
3. As result the petitioners are 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.
4. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be noorder as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
NOVEMBER 30,2015