W.P.(C)/7897/2014 of AJAY SINGAL Vs LT. GOVERNOR OF D ELHI & ORS.
Parties
- AJAY SINGAL (PETITIONER)
- LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1 resolved of 2 detected)
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: 10.03.2015
+ WP(C) No. 7897/2014
AJAY SINGAL
.... Petitioner
versus
LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Petitioner : Ms Esha Mazumdar, Mr Setu Niket and Mr Saurabh Mishra For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi for L&B/LAC Mr Manu Mridul and Ms Ragini for DDA
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this matter is covered by the decision of this court in the case of Girish Chhabra v. Lt.
Governor of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2011. He states that although possession of the subject land has been taken, the
award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) was made more than five years prior to the commencement 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. In this case Award No. 1/98-99 was made on 24.04.1998. He also states
that compensation has not yet been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the requirements of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have been fulfilled and the petitioner is entitled to declaration that the subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has lapsed. The land in question is situated in Village Sahibabad Daulatpur in Khasra Nos. 43/3/1 Min (0-10) and 43/8/2 (1-5) measuring 1 bigha and 15 biswas in all.
2.Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has been take on 13.01.1997 and 07.12.1999, compensation has not been paid
to the petitioner. The Award is also more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Consequently, the decision of this court in Girish Chhabra (supra) applies on all fours and the subject acquisition has lapsed.
3.The writ petition is allowed by declaring that the acquisition in respect of the subject land has lapsed. There shall be no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MARCH 10, 2015 SU