Allowed

Aman Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/8196/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a declaration that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The court held that since the award predated the 2013 Act and compensation was unpaid, the proceedings were deemed to have lapsed and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Court declared the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the RTFCLARR.

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

¶1

$~57

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 09.02.2016

¶4

W.P.(C) 8196/2015 & CM No.17186/2015

¶5

AMAN SINGH .... Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

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

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Petitioners : Mr Ateev Mathur, Ms Richa Oberoi and Mr A.P.S. Sehgal, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr Rajesh Kumar with Mr Priyank Khattar and Mr Atul Krishna, Advocates for R-1 Mr Siddharath Panda, Advocate for R-2/LAC/L&B Mr Shalaj Mridul for Ms Manu Mridul, Advocates for respondent No.3.

¶10

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

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

¶13

The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2 handed over by Mr Panda is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as all the necessary averments are contained in the writ petition which he reiterates.

¶14

The petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to

¶15

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

¶16

W.P.(C) No. 8196/2015

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

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.6D/Supplementary/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 was made, inter alia , in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra Nos. 554/214 (02-12) only to the extent of 845 sq. yards in village Jasola, New Delhi

¶19

shall be deemed to have lapsed.

¶20

Though the respondents claim that possession of the said land was taken on 10.07.1988, the petitioner disputes this and maintains 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.

¶21

Without going into the controversy of physical possession, this

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(C) No. 8196/2015

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

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

¶26