Partly allowed

Kamal Kant Bansal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Jul 2016W.P.(C)/8835/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, arguing the award dated 2008 lapsed due to non-payment of compensation. The Court held proceedings lapsed and directed the government to pay compensation under the 2013 Act within six months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; compensation must be paid to petitioners under the 2013 Act within six months.

Kamal Kant Bansal & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~60

¶2

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

¶3

% Judgment delivered on: 12.07.2016

¶4

WP(C) No.8835/2015

¶5

KAMAL KANT BANSAL & ANR .... Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Petitioners :Mr S.K. Rout with Dr N. Pradeep Sharma, Mr Pawan Kumar and Mr Rahul Verma.

¶10

For the Respondent L&B/LAC: Mr Siddharth Panda and Ms Jyoti Tyagi For the Respondent No.3 : Mr Jatan Singh with Mr Pawan & Puneet Garg

¶11

CORAM:-

¶12

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

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

¶15

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.

¶16

The number of the award is 1/2008-09 and is dated 06.11.2008. It is in respect of, inter alia, the petitioners’ land comprised in Khasra

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

W.P.(C) No.8835/2015

¶19

No.32//15/2 min (0-11) measuring 11 biswas in all in village Nangloi Jat, Delhi. Admittedly, physical possession of the subject land was taken on 07.03.2007. The said land has been utilized for the Inderlok-Mundka MRTS Project Phase-II by DMRC. Admittedly, compensation has not been paid to the petitioners.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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 has already been utilized, the petitioners are not claiming the return of the land and would

¶27

Page 2 of 3

¶28

W.P.(C) No.8835/2015

¶29

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.

¶30

The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There shall be no
order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
JULY 12, 2016
kb

¶31

Page 3 of 3

¶32

W.P.(C) No.8835/2015

Kamal Kant Bansal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Kant Bansal & Anr. 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

Birender Sangwan Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Birender Sangwan Vs Union of India & Ors.

D.P. Chandel and Anr. Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Lucky Home Co-Operative Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs the Registrar Co-Operative Societies & Anr.

Ramakant Dixit Vs Union of India & Ors.

Utsav Kumar Vs Commissioner of Police & Ors.

A.K. Asthana Vs Union of India & Anr.

Yudhvir Singh Vs Ministry of Railway & Ors.

Mechanical Depoartment Primary Co-Operative Bank Vs Central Registrar of Co-Operative Societies & Anr.

Bharat Bhushan Allahabadi Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies & Anr.

Alpana Gupta Vs Pranab Gupta

Sarabjit Singh Anand & Ors. Vs Manjit Singh Anand & Ors.

Deepak Tyagi & Ors. Vs Union of India

Sharda Nand and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.