Allowed

Saroj Devi v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC7 Apr 2015W.P.(C)/8418/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declared that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapsed as the award was made before the 2013 Act and compensation remained unpaid in the treasury. The Court held the 2013 Act's second proviso was prospective.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed to have lapsed; writ petition allowed with no order as to costs.

Saroj Devi Vs Union of India & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2015)

¶1

$~44

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 07.04.2015

¶4

WP(C) No. 8418/2014 AND CM No. 19460/2014

SAROJ DEVI

.... Petitioner

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

¶9

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶10

For the Petitioner : Mr Amit Gupta and Ms Sumati Jumrani, Advocates For the Respondent No.1 : Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay, Advocate For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates For the Respondent Nos. 3 : Mr Pawan Mathur, Advocate

¶11

CORAM:-

¶12

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

¶15

Mr Yeeshu Jain, the learned counsel, has handed over the counter

¶16

affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2. The same is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as he would be relying on the averments already contained in the writ petition.

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

W.P.(C) No. 8418/2014

¶19

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. A 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. 14/87-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia , in respect of the petitioner‟s land comprised in Khasra Nos. 515/2 min (1-00), 530/2 (2-08) , 535 (4-16) and 536 (4-03) measuring 12 bighas and 7 biswas in all in village Satbari shall be deemed to have lapsed.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

has not been paid to the petitioner but according to the respondents, the same has been deposited in the treasury. Therefore, the petitioner seeks 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

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

W.P.(C) No. 8418/2014

¶25

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Ordinance”).

¶26

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 said Ordinance 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

¶27

Fincap (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 4283/2011 wherein the Supreme Court held as under:-

¶28

“ 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.”

¶29

The same has been reinforced by the Supreme Court in Karnail Kaur & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7424/2013

¶30

decided on 22.01.2015.

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 8418/2014

¶33

From the above decisions, it is evident that the said Ordinance is prospective in nature and the rights created in favour of the petitioner as on 01.01.2014 by virtue of the 2013 Act is undisturbed by the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which has been introduced by the said Ordinance.

¶34

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 .

¶35

All the necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of

¶36

the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the

¶37

following cases stand satisfied:-

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 8418/2014

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

As a result, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the said

¶45

acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

¶46

The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 07, 2015
SV

¶47

Page 5 of 5

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 8418/2014

Saroj Devi v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Devi v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jardine Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Zile Singh Vs Municipal Commissioner of Delhi

Sadhu Vaswani Int. School for Vs Director of Education & Anr.

Union Bank of India Vs Global Heritage Venture Limited & Ors.

Sanjay Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Kalpana Mehdiratta Vs Air Force Bal Bharati School & Ors.

University of Delhi Vs Ram Prakash & Ors.

Mehar Singh Vs State Farms Coporation of India

M/S Jardine Farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Swad Property Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gopsons Printers Private Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

Dentsply India Vs Excel International & Ors.

Viking Supply Ships Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Kamlesh & Anr. Vs Hon'Ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors.