Allowed

Sukhbir Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Aug 2016W.P.(C)/6237/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to delayed compensation. The petition was allowed to declare the proceedings lapsed and direct the payment of compensation under the 2013 Act within six months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed to the extent of declaring acquisition proceedings lapsed and directing compensation payment under the 2013 Act within six months.

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

¶1

$~44

¶2

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

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 08.08.2016

¶4

WP(C) No.6237/2015

¶5

SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS .... Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Petitioners : Mr Hemant Malhotra with Mr Pankaj Malhotra For the Respondent UOI : Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay For the Respondent LAC : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi For the Respondent DDA : Mr S.R. Sharma with Mr Satyendra Srivastav

¶10

CORAM:-

¶11

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

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

¶14

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, 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.

¶15

The number of the award is 80-E/1970-71 (Suppl.) and is dated 09.01.1981. It is in respect of, inter alia, the petitioners’ land comprised

¶16

W.P.(C) No.6237/2015

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

in Khasra No.430 (old number being khasra no. 2566/1170/2) measuring 11 bighas 6 biswas in village Mehrauli, Delhi. Admittedly, physical possession of the subject land was taken on 23.09.1981. The said land has to be utilized for an electric sub-station as also for a residential scheme. Admittedly, compensation has not been paid to the petitioners.

¶19

Although physical possession of the subject land has admittedly been taken, compensation has not been paid to the petitioners 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

The inevitable conclusion would be that the acquisition proceedings would have to be declared as having lapsed. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the land is to be utilized and physical possession has been taken, the petitioners are not claiming the

¶26

W.P.(C) No.6237/2015

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

return of the land and would be satisfied, if compensation is given to the petitioners under the 2013 Act. This is a fair and very reasonable approach adopted on behalf of the petitioners. 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 petitioners in terms of the 2013 Act. The same be done within six months.

¶29

The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There shall be no
order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
AUGUST 08, 2016
kb

¶30

W.P.(C) No.6237/2015

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Sukhbir Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhbir Singh & Ors. 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

Neena Gandhi Vs UOI & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Raj Bahadur

Carlsberg India Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Krishan Kumar Aggarwal Vs Land & Building Department

Shyami and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

R.P. Bhaskar Vs Bhagwan Budha Coop. G/H Society

Amit Kumar & Ors. Vs Land & Building Department

Shyam Murari Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Kohinoor Paper & News Print Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sbc Minerals Pvt. Ltd.

Parmod Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Samajwadi Labour Front Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri Rami & Ors. Vs Land Acquisition Collector South-East & Ors.

Sujit Kumar Vs Vandana

Sonia Bawa Vs Bobby Bahl