Allowed

Jagan Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Aug 2016W.P.(C)/3819/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged land acquisition seeking lapse under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act due to old award and unpaid compensation. Court declared proceedings lapsed but directed payment of compensation under the 2013 Act within six months to allow land retention for public purpose.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to benefit under Section 24(2); compensation directed to be paid within six months; parties to retain land status quo.

Jagan Singh Vs Union of India & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~15

¶2

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

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 11.08.2016

¶4

WP(C) No.3819/2015

¶5

JAGAN SINGH .... Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr Sumit Bansal For the Respondent UOI : Mr Chiranjiv Kumar For the Respondent LAC/L&B : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi For the Respondent DDA : Mr Nikhil Rohatgi For the Respondent DMRC : Mr R.V. Sinha

¶10

CORAM:HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

¶13

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, which is the subject- matter of the present petition, ought to be deemed to have lapsed in view of the Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

¶14

The number of the award is 21/91-92 and is dated 18.06.1992. It is

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

W.P.(C) No.3819/2015

¶17

in respect of, inter alia, the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra Nos.562/424 (4-16), 450 (3-12) (to the extent of 1/12^th share amounting to 6 biswas), 451 (9-11) (to the extent of 1/12^th share amounting to 16 biswas) and 545/461/1 (64-12) (to the extent of 5/36^th share amounting to 8 bighas and 8 biswas) measuring 14 bighas 6 biswas in all in village Jasola, Delhi. Admittedly, physical possession of the subject land was taken on 19.01.2006. The said land has been utilized for DMRC for its car maintenance depot at Kalandi Kunj under the MRTS Project PhaseIII. Admittedly, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner.

¶18

Although physical possession of the subject land has admittedly been taken, compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and the award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Consequently, all the necessary ingredients of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following decisions, stand satisfied:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors : 2015 (3) SCC 353 ;

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

W.P.(C) No.3819/2015

¶26

The inevitable conclusion would be that the acquisition proceedings would have to be declared as having lapsed. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the land is to be utilized and physical possession has been taken, the petitioner is not claiming the return of the land and would be satisfied, if compensation is given to the petitioner under the 2013 Act. This is a fair and very reasonable approach adopted on behalf of the petitioner. It also enables the respondents to retain the land for the purpose for which it was sought to have been acquired without going through an entirely new acquisition process. Therefore, we direct that the compensation be paid to the petitioner in terms of the 2013 Act. The same be done within six months.

¶27

The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J

¶29

AUGUST 11, 2016 kb

¶30

Page 3 of 3

¶31

W.P.(C) No.3819/2015

Jagan Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagan Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Loomba Vs Amarjeet & Ors.

Rakesh Kapoor Vs B.S.E.S. & Ors.

Neelam Kohli Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.

Jaipal Vs Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Usha & Ors.

Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (Dchfc Ltd.) & Anr. Vs Neelam Kandpal

Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (Dchfc Ltd.) & Anr. Vs Anil Kumar Pokhriyal

Delhi Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. (Dchfc Ltd.) & Anr. Vs S. Balasundari

Food Planet Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shyami and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Anju Lata Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ramandeep & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

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

Chennai Msw Private Limited Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation