IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BADAR DURREZ AHMED & ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JJ.
GODFREY PHILLIPS (I) LTD. – Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – Respondents
WP (C) No. 6507 of 2014 & CM Nos. 15540 of 2014 & 34388 of 2016
Decided On : 09-12-2016
Section 24(2) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - 1894 Act - [Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and its interpretation by the Supreme Court and this Court in several cases, including Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others, Union of India and Others vs. Shiv Raj and Others, Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, Surender Singh vs. Union of India & Others, and Girish Chhabra vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others. The court found that the necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act were satisfied based on the interpretation of the Act in the mentioned cases, leading to the declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for an acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The possession of the subject land was not taken, and compensation was not paid for most of the land. The petitioner disputed the claim of possession by the respondents and sought a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act were satisfied based on the interpretation of the Act in several cases, leading to the declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. The court also allowed the petition, rejecting the objection that the petitioner, as a subsequent purchaser, would not have the right to challenge the acquisition.
Issues: The issues involved the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the dispute over possession and compensation, and the petitioner's right to seek a declaration of rights as a subsequent purchaser.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and the satisfaction of its necessary ingredients, as well as the rejection of the objection that the petitioner, as a subsequent purchaser, would not have the right to challenge the acquisition.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, declaring that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed, and rejected the objection that the petitioner, as a subsequent purchaser, would not have the right to challenge the acquisition.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.
1. The petitioner seeks 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 initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”) in respect of which Award No. 10/87-88 dated 20.05.1987 was made, inter-alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra Nos. 376 (4-06), 377 (4-16), 381 min (1-02), 383 (4-16), 384 (4-06), 385 (4-06), 386/1 min (0-04), 386/2 min (0-06) and 390 (4-06) total measuring 28 bighas and 8 biswas in all in village Sayoorpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. Admittedly, possession of the subject land, other than Khasra Nos. 384, 385 and 390 was not taken and in respect thereof compensation was also not paid. In respect of Khasra Nos. 376 and 381, the compensation amount was deposited in Court pursuant to an order dated 30.12.2013 passed in CM (Main) 1407/2013. This would not amount to payment of compensation as held by us in several cases. Therefore, it is clear that insofar as the subject property, other than Khasra Nos. 384, 385 and 390, is concerned, neither possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid.
3. Though the respondents claim that possession of Khasra Nos. 384, 385 and 390 was taken on 14.07.1987, the petitioner disputes this and maintains that physical possession has not been taken over. With regard to the issue of compensation in respect of these three khasra numbers, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier in respect of the very same acquisition proceedings, the Division Bench of this Court had dealt with the case of Balbir Singh vs. Union of India & Others, (1989) 39 DLT 233. In that decision, the Division Bench had, inter-alia observed and held as under:-
“2. The Delhi Administration as also the Delhi Development Authority have taken up a very fair stand before us. Their contention is that certain land owners have received compensation and as such they should not be allowed to deal with the land till the compensation is paid back to the Delhi Administration with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date they received the payment till the date they have refunded the amount. The contention raised is quite fair and is accepted. It is further stated by learned counsel for the respondents that no effort would be made to take possession of any land from anybody and the possession already taken of these lands will be restored back to the land owners on receipt of the refund of compensation, if made with interest. It is further contented that in certain cases, the land owners have been allotted alternate plots in lieu of their land having been acquired and in those cases the alternate plots must be surrendered before the land owners can take advantage of the quashing of the notifications. The counsel for the petitioner accepts this suggestion of the respondents. Consequently, we direct that the possession of the petitioners will not be disturbed except in case where the compensation has been received by the land owners or alternate plots have been allotted until the compensation amount and the alternate plot is surrendered. Counsel for the petitioners agree that the land owners who have received compensation or have been allotted alternate plots would surrender the same as indicated above within two months from today. All other land owners who have their lands the way they like and their possession will not be disturbed by the respondents. Delhi Administration will see to it that the Revenue records are amended accordingly. The proper authority i.e. the Land Acquisition Collector will receive the refund of compensation with 12 per cent interest per annum as well as the surrender of the alternate plots when and if offered. The writ petitio
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.