Allowed

Ishwar Singh & Ors. v. the Land Acquisition Collector & Ors.

Delhi HC15 Mar 2016W.P.(C)/9125/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declared that land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act deemed lapsed due to the award being made over five years before the 2013 Act and compensation not being paid. The petitioners were granted the benefit of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act are deemed to have lapsed and the writ petition allowed accordingly.

Ishwar Singh & Ors. Vs the Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~3

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI** % Judgment delivered on: 15.03.2016

¶3

W.P. (C) 9125/2015 ISHWAR SINGH & ORS .... Petitioners

¶4

versus

¶5

THE LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS ..... Respondents

¶6

Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr Kamal Katyan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Advocate for DDA Mr Siddharth Panda, Advocate for LAC/L&B Mr Satyakam, Advocate for GNCTD.

¶7

CORAM:-

¶8

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

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

¶11

The counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 has

¶12

been handed over by Mr Siddharth Panda. The same is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder

¶13

affidavit and reiterates the contents of the writ petition in reply.

¶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

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

W.P.(C) No.9125/2015

¶17

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 petitioners’ land comprised in Khasra Nos. 707/233(1-07), 708/233(1-04), 709/233(1-07) and 493/234 (1-03) measuring 5 Bighas 1 Biswa in all in village Jasola shall be deemed to have lapsed.

¶18

Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 19.08.1997, the petitioners dispute this and maintain that physical possession has not been taken. With regard to the question of compensation, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that it was deposited in the treasury although the same had not been offered to the petitioner. This being the position, it cannot be regarded as payment of compensation in view of the Supreme Court decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors : (2014) 3 SCC 183 .

¶19

Without going into the controversy of physical possession, this 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

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

W.P.(C) No.9125/2015

¶22

paid. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases stand satisfied:-

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be

¶30

no order as to costs.

¶31

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

¶32

MARCH 15, 2016 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J ‘sn’

¶33

Page 3 of 3

¶34

W.P.(C) No.9125/2015

Ishwar Singh & Ors. v. the Land Acquisition Collector & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Singh & Ors. v. the Land Acquisition Collector & 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

Des Raj Arora & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Amarjit Singh & Anr. Vs Gautam & Ors.

Amrit Kumari Vs Asst. Housing Commissioner & Ors.

Jayant Sahai Vs Land Deveopment Officer

Sudhir Singh Teotia Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Veetee Fine Foods Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Shyam Advertisor Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation (Sdmc)

Government of NCT of Delhi Vs Suresh Kumar

Des Raj Arora & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Krishan Kumar & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Avtar Singh Sejwal & Ors. Vs Land Acquisition Collector (South) & Anr.

Akram Khan Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Subhash Arora Vs Rohit Bhatia

M/S. Faxo Fine It Sales and Services Vs National Informatics Centre Services Inc. (Nicsi) & Anr.