G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Counter affidavit has not been filed by LAC. Ms. Tyagi submits that she adopts the counter affidavit filed by LAC in another connected matter bearing W.P. (C)10455/2015.

2. With consent of the parties, the matter is set down for final hearing and disposal.

3. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to land bearing plot no.6 measuring 300 sq. yds. out of Khasra no.40/22 (4-12), situated in the revenue estate of village Karala, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject land’), to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 as neither compensation has been paid nor possession has been taken over.

4. Counsel appearing for LAC relies on para 4 of its counter affidavit filed in the connected matter submits that possession of the subject land has been taken and handed over to DSIIDC. However, compensation could not be paid as the original owner did not turn up to collect the same.

5. Mr. Verma has placed reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. V. Harak Chand Misiri Mal Solanki & Ors., reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183 to submit that it was the duty and responsibility of LAC to tender the compensation, which has not been done in the present case. As such the acquisition proceedings would stand lapsed.

6. Counsel appearing for DSIIDC also disputes the fact that the possession is with the petitioner.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Para 4 of counter affidavit filed by LAC in W.P. (C)10455/2015, reads as under :-

“4. That the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the actual vacant physical possession of the total subject lands measuring 04-04 falling in khasra number 40//19 in village Karala was duly taken on 29.7.2008 on the spot and handed over to the requisition agency i.e. DSIIDC. It is submitted that the ownership of the subject land lies with Sardar Singh S/o Kanhaiya who never turned up receive the compensation and/or the SRP as the objections were filed by one Pyara Singh, Param Jeet Kaur W/o Pyara Singh and some others persons. The present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has been claiming the rights over the subject land through different GPA executed during different period and which gives no description of specific measurement out of the subject khasra number as at times, the khasra numbers are more than the subject khasra number but the measurement is combined without any bifurcation between the different khasra numbers.”

8. Reading of the counter affidavit makes it clear that the compensation has not been tendered. We are of the considered view that the case of the petitioner would be fully covered by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.(supra), more particularly, paragraphs 14 to 20 of the judgment, which read as under:

“14. Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act enjoins upon the Collector, on making an award under Section 11, to tender payment of compensation to persons interested entitled thereto according to award. It further mandates the Collector to make payment of compensation to them unless prevented by one of the contingencies contemplated in sub-section (2). The contingencies contemplated in Section 31(2) are: (i) the persons interested entitled to compensation do not consent to receive it (ii) there is no person competent to alienate the land and (iii) there is dispute as to the title to receive compensation or as to the apportionment of it. If due to any of the contingencies contemplated in Section 31(2), the Collector is prevented from making payment of compensation to the persons interested who are entitled to compensation, then the Collector is required to deposit the compensation in the court to which reference under Section 18 may be made.

15. Simply put, Se