Allowed

Krishan Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC14 Mar 2016W.P.(C)/1178/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declared that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which started more than five years before the 2013 Act and resulted in unpaid compensation, were deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RFRAR Act.

What did the court decide?

Declared that the acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed to have lapsed and the writ petition allowed.

Krishan Kumar & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~32

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 14.03.2016 + W.P.(C) 1178/2015 & CM No.2075/2015 KRISHAN KUMAR & ANR. .... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

¶4

Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr Anuj Kumar Garg, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay, CGSC with Mr Syed Hussain Adil, Advocate for UOI Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with Ms Ranjana Rani, Adv. for UOI Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for L&B/LAC Mr Dhanesh Relan, Ms Akshita Manocha and Ms Isha Garg, Advocates

¶5

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

¶6

JUDGMENT

¶7

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

¶8

The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.4 has been handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain. The same is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and reiterates the contents of the writ petition in response to the said counter affidavit.

¶9

Page 1 of 3

¶10

W.P.(C) No. 1178/2015

¶11

The petitioners seek 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.1934-D/81-82 dated 19.10.1981 was made, inter alia , in respect of the petitioners’ land comprised in Khasra Nos. 154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (1-12) (to the extent of 1 bigha only) measuring 4 bigha 5 biswas in all in village Molarband, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

¶12

Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 10.04.1997, the petitioners dispute this and maintain that physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not been paid.

¶13

Without going into the controversy of 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. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of

¶14

Page 2 of 3

¶15

W.P.(C) No. 1178/2015

¶16

the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases stand satisfied:-

¶17

(1) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors : (2014) 3 SCC 183 ;

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

As a result, the petitioners are entitled to a 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.

¶23