Allowed

Kram Singh @ Bikram Singh @ Jagdish and Anr. v. the Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC12 Jan 2016W.P.(C)/2899/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declared that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapsed due to non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession, allowing the petitioners to avail benefits under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject lands are deemed to have lapsed.

Kram Singh @ Bikram Singh @ Jagdish and Anr. Vs the Lt… — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Judgment delivered on: 12.01.2016

¶4

W.P.(C) 2899/2015 & CM 5958/2015

¶5

KRAM SINGH @ BIKRAM SINGH @ JAGDISH AND ANR.

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

THE LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents

¶9

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶10

For the Petitioners : Mr Rahul Sharma with Mr Parvesh Chaudhary For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr Siddharth Panda For the Respondent DDA : Mr Arjun Pant

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

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

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

¶15

The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Siddharth Panda on behalf of

¶16

respondent nos. 2&3 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as all the necessary averments are contained in the writ petition.

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

WP(C) 2899/2015

¶19

By way of this writ petition the petitioners seek the benefit of Section

¶20

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. The petitioners seek a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) and in respect of which Award No.25A/70-71 dated 28.03.1980 was made, inter alia , in respect of the petitioners’ land comprised in khasra no. 147 measuring 800 Sq. Yds. in all in village Gazipur, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.

¶21

The case of the petitioners is that neither physical possession of the said 800 Sq. Yds. of land has been taken by the land acquiring agency nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioners. On the other hand the respondents state that the possession of 1 bigha 18 biswas out of khasra no. 147 was taken on 18.04.1980. However, it is also admitted that the possession of the land to the extent of 10 biswas was not taken. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents contend that the amount was sent to the treasury. That of course does not amount to any payment of compensation as held by several decisions of this

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

WP(C) 2899/2015

¶24

court. Furthermore, it is also to be noted that in response to an RTI query, the Tehsildar (LA), District East, Delhi, has clearly, in his response dated 29.04.2008, stated that the compensation has not been paid.

¶25

From the aforesaid circumstances it is clear that neither physical possession of the said 800 Sq. Yds has been taken by the land acquiring agency nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioners. The award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and therefore all the ingredients of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following decisions

¶26

stand satisfied:-

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India and Ors. : W.P.(C) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this Court.

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

WP(C) 2899/2015

¶33

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 lands are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

¶34

The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no

¶35

order as to costs.

¶36

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 12, 2016
kb

¶37

Page 4 of 4

¶38

WP(C) 2899/2015

Kram Singh @ Bikram Singh @ Jagdish and Anr. v. the Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kram Singh @ Bikram Singh @ Jagdish and Anr. v. the Lt. Governor of Delhi and 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

Ram Kishan Vs Rajesh Yadav and Ors.

Amet Sikka Vs Government of Delhi Nct, Delhi Government Secretariat

Neelam Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Rajiv Khosla Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Phoenix Surgicals & Ors. Vs the Drug Controller of Delhi & Ors.

Suresh Kumar Arora & Ors. Vs the Registrar Co-Op. Societies & Ors.

M/S Srj Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Director Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.

Tulinder Katoch Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manish Chopra Vs Safdarjung Hospital & v M M C

Ramesh Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Well Protect Manpower Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs Lok Nayak Hospital

G R Infraprojects Limited Vs Ministry of Road Transport & Highways

Vinod Puri Vs Raj Puri & Ors.

Devender Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.