W.P.(C)/9137/2014 of CHOTTI DEVI Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 06.07.2015

+ WP(C) No.9137/2014 & CM 20811/2014

CHOTTI DEVI

versus

.... Petitioner

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Petitioner : Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Mr Sumeer Sodhi and Mr Arjun Nanda For the Respondent UOI : Ms Saroj Bidawat For the Respondent DDA : Mr Pawan Mathur For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMEDHON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1.The counter affidavit of the Land Acquisition Collector is already

on record. The counter affidavit of respondent no.2 (DDA) is handed over by the learned counsel and the same is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the DDA inasmuch as he would be relying on the averments made in the writ petition.

2.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. declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) in respect of which

Award No.14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra Nos.842 measuring 4 bighas 16 biswas in all in village Satbari, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have

lapsed.

3.The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said

land was taken on 14.07.1987. This is disputed by the petitioner, who claims to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.

4.In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, the same

has not been paid to the petitioner but, according to the respondents, the same has been deposited in the treasury. Therefore, they seek to invoke the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which was introduced by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Ordinance”).

5.So far as the applicability of the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of

the 2013 Act is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon by the

respondents inasmuch as the Ordinance of 2014 has been held to be prospective in nature and does not take away vested rights. This has so been held by the Supreme Court in recent decision in M/s Radiance

Fincap (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.decided on 12.01.2015

in Civil Appeal No. 4283/2011 wherein the Supreme Court held as

under:-

“The right conferred to the land holders/owners of the acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is the statutory right and, therefore, the said right cannot be taken away by an Ordinance by inserting proviso to the abovesaid sub-section without giving retrospective effect to the same.”

6.The same has been reinforced by the Supreme Court in Karnail

Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.Civil Appeal No. 7424/2013

decided on 22.01.2015.

7.From the above decisions, it is evident that the said Ordinance of

2014 is prospective in nature and the rights created in favour of the petitioners as on 01.01.2014 by virtue of the 2013 Act are undisturbed by the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which has been introduced by the said Ordinance. The same would apply in respect of the said Ordinance of 2015.

8.Without going into the controversy with regard to the physical possession, this much is clear that the Award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been paid to the petitioner, but has only been deposited in the treasury, which does not amount to payment of compensation as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.

9.All the necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases stand satisfied:-

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

(2)Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014;

(3)Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and

(4)Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors: WP(C) 2759/2014decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.WP(C) 2759/2014decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.

10.As result, the petitioner is entitled to 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.

11.The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be

no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

JULY 06, 2015 kb

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J