The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act in light of the mandatory provisions for payment of compensation or deposit of the same in the court under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

CM APPL. No. 33505/2017

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W. P. (C) 8151/2017

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No. 1099 Min admeasuring 1 Bigha, situated in the revenue estate of Village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri, New Delhi-110070 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Subject Land’), has 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 neither the compensation has been paid nor the physical possession has been taken.

2. It is pointed out that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 27.06.1996. A Section 6 declaration of the Act was made on 10.01.1997 and thereafter an Award bearing No.2/1998-99 was passed on 07.01.1999.

3. Ms. Marwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having regard to the fact that neither the possession of the subject land was taken nor the compensation has been paid, the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioner stands lapsed. Reliance has been placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harak Chand Misiri Mal Solanki & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183. Ms. Marwaha further contends that the objection raised by Land Acquisition Collector that no relief can be granted to the petitioner on account of stay order granted by this Court in W.P. (C) 7802/2012 titled as Ruchi Vihar Housing Welfare Society (Regd.) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., has no force as the same objection was raised and rejected by the predecessor Bench of this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in W.P. (C) 6577/2014 titled as Vikram Sarin Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. on 24.03.2015, more particularly para 4. Reliance has also been placed on W.P.(C) 1609/2016 titled as Alep Kaur Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., on 24.04.2017, more particularly para 12, which reads as under :

“12. Since, the petitioner is the recorded owner of the subject land and shown as the claimant in the award and since the respondents plead that they could not take the possession of the subject land due to a stay from this Court, the question as to if the period during which the proceeding was stayed could be excluded from the period so stipulated under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, is still pending before the Supreme Court in a larger Bench in Yogesh Neema vs. State of MP & Ors SLP (C) No.10742/2008 vide order dated 12.01.2016. However, in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2015) 3 SCC 353, the Supreme Court has held that if the possession could not be taken by the State for any reason including stay by court etc, the provisions of the Section 24(2) the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, would apply.”

5. Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case, the Award was rendered as far as back as in the year 1999. She placed reliance on observation made by the Apex Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 4275, wherein the Apex Court analysed Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act. Para 14 of the said judgment reads as under :

“14. The picture that therefore emerges on a reading of Section 24(2) is that the State has no business to expropriate from a citizen his property if an award has been made and the necessary steps to complete acquisition have not been taken for a period of five years or more. These steps in