Allowed

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

Delhi HC4 Sept 2018W.P.(C)/8199/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Article 226, the Court held that acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to unpaid compensation, despite the award being made under the 1894 Act, and ordered payment within one year.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and direction to pay compensation within one year.

Kamal Kant Bansal & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~38

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Judgment: 4^th September, 2018

¶4

- W.P.(C) 8199/2016

¶5

KAMAL KANT BANSAL & ANR ..... Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr S.K. Rout and Mr Aman Mehrotra, Advs

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain, SC with Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advs for LAC/L&B Ms Nidhi Raman, Adv for R-3

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

¶11

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)

¶12

This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioners comprised in Khasra No. 31/20 admeasuring 04 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Nangloi Jat, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the 'subject land') are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as '2013 Act') as the compensation in respect thereof has not been paid to the petitioners although physical possession of the subject land has been taken over.

¶13

W.P.(C) 8199/2016

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was issued on 04.01.2008 and a declaration under Section 6 was made on 18.01.2008. Thereafter, an award bearing no.05/DC(W)/2007-08 was passed on 30.04.2008 under Section 11 of the Act.

¶16

Mr. Rout, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contends that the possession of the subject land was taken over, however, the compensation in respect thereof has not been tendered. In this circumstance, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be entitled to a declaration under Section 24(2) of the Act.

¶17

Mr Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel for the LAC, submits that possession of the subject land was duly taken way back on 24.06.2008 by preparing possession proceedings and the same was handed over to the PWD on the spot, however, the Statement-A with respect to payment of compensation is untraceable and an FIR has been lodged. Para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under:-

¶18

“4. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the actual vacant physical possession of the subject lands falling in khasra number 31//20 min(0-04) which became the subject matter of the present writ petition was duly taken way back on 24.06.2008 on the spot by preparing possession proceedings on the spot and the same was handed over to the PWD on the spot however the Statement –A is untraceable and an FIR has been lodged in P.S. Keshavpuram to this effect.”

¶19

We have heard learned counsels for the parties.

¶20

Having regard to the categorical stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the LAC that possession of the subject land has been taken on 24.06.2008, however, the compensation has not been tendered to the

¶21

W.P.(C) 8199/2016

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

petitioners and also taking into consideration the fact that the award having been announced five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, in our view, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. Counsel for the petitioners has only prayed for compensation as per this Act of 2013. It is ordered accordingly. Compensation be paid to the petitioners within one year from today.

¶24

The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶25

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J

¶26

G.S.SISTANI, J

¶27

SEPTEMBER 04, 2018 SU

¶28

W.P.(C) 8199/2016

¶29

Page 3 of 3

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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surender Kumar Vs the Director of Education & Ors.

Prof (Dr) Neeti Kapur & Anr. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation (Mcd South) & Ors.

Regania Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gnct of Delhi and Ors.

Shahina Ara Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Ors.

Bale Ram Vs Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Singhal Agencies Vs Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Manglam Plajce Welfare Association (Regd.) Vs North Delhi Municial Corporation and Ors.

Hitesh Chaudhary Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ritu Bhargava Vs Sharad Bhargava

Dinesh Kumar Goel & Ors. Vs Delhi High Court & Ors.

Dr Vinayak Verma Vs Medical Counseling Committee & Ors.

Indraprashta Power Generation Company Ltd. Vs Savinder Kaur

Sunita Chhakara Vs Director Nsit & Anr.

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr.