A বিভাগী আদালত সুপ্রিম কোর্টের সিদ্ধান্ত অনুযায়ী, যেহেতু ক্ষতিপূরণ অবশ্যই অপেক্ষকদের সামনে提交 করা আবশ্যক, কেবল আদালতে জমা দেওয়ার মাধ্যমে ক্ষতিপূরণ পরিশোধিত ধরা হয় না।
Declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject lands are deemed to have lapsed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~39
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SOSHIL KUMAR JAIN AND ANR. ... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Ms Rachna Agrawal with Mr Vinod Thakur
For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Siddharth Panda
For the Respondent DDA : Mr Dhanesh Relan with Mr Arush Bhandari
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
necessary averments are contained in the writ petition.
Page 1 of 6
W.P.(C) No. 3447/2015
deposited in Court in CM(Main) No.1407/2013 on 30.12.2013 pursuant to an order passed by this Court in the said matter. Insofar as the question of deposit is concerned, the same has already been considred by us in Gyanender Singh & Ors v. UOI & Ors. - W.P.(C) 1393/2014
decided on 23.09.2014 wherein this court held that unless and until the
Page 2 of 6
W.P.(C) No. 3447/2015
compensation is tendered to the persons interested, mere depositing of the compensation in the court would not be sufficient and cannot be regarded as having been paid. Therefore, following the decision in Gyanender Singh ( supra ) the deposit in court, in this case cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioners.
“Provided further that in computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction issued by any court or the period specified in the award of a tribunal for taking possession or such period where possession has been taken but the compensation lying deposited in a court or in any designated account maintained for this purpose shall be excluded.”
(underlining added)
compute the period of five years referred to in Section24(2) of the 2013
Page 3 of 6
W.P.(C) No. 3447/2015
Act. Certain periods are to be excluded in computing the said period referred to in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The periods to be excluded
are:
during which this amount was lying so deposited ought to be excluded. But one fact is lost sight of that even if this provision were to apply, the respondents would get benefit of only one day which would not be sufficient to disentitle the petitioner.
Page 4 of 6
W.P.(C) No. 3447/2015
will have to be construed in the light of the various decisions rendered by
the Supreme Court and this Court in:-
In Pune Municipal Corporation ( supra ) it has been held that unless and
until the compensation was tendered to the persons interested, mere deposit of the compensation amount in a court would not amount to payment of compensation. This aspect has also been considered in Gyanender Singh & Others v. Union Of India & Others: WP (C)
1393/2014 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 23.09.2014.
Page 5 of 6
W.P.(C) No. 3447/2015
of the said Ordinance, is not applicable, as the said proviso is only prospective in operation and does not take away any rights which vested on the petitioner on 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act came into force. In any event, in this case, even if the proviso were to apply the same would give a benefit to the respondents of one day which does not disentitle the petitioners.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 03, 2015 kb
Page 6 of 6
W.P.(C) No. 3447/2015
2 issues framed by the court
Whether acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act initiated more than five years prior to the 2013 Act are deemed to have lapsed where compensation has not been tendered despite deposit in court.
Whether the exclusion clause in the second proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applies retrospectively or to the period relevant to the deposition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gyanender Singh & Ors v. UOI & Ors.Explained¶15
Gyanender Singh & Ors v. UOI & Ors.: W.P.(C) 1393/2014
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and OrsFollowed¶38
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183 · Who else cites this
Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and OrsFollowed¶39
Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564 · Who else cites this
Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and OrsReferred¶40
Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013
Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.Referred¶41
Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2294/2014
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SOSHIL KUMAR JAIN AND ANR.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
