Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement act, 2013 does not confer a new cause of action to challenge concluded acquisition proceedings and is applicable to pending proceedings only.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. - The petitioner by way of present writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of Notification No.F.9 (16)/80-L&B dated 25th November, 1980 under Section 4, Notification No.F.9(28)/85-L&B dated 18th June, 1985 under Section 6 of the Land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Old act') and award No.23/87-88 in respect of his agricultural land situated in the revenue estate of village Maidan Garhi, New Delhi and also various acts continuing with the acquisition of the land of the petitioners after notification under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Land acquisition act').

2. The respondents issued the Notification under Section 4 dated 25th November, 1980 and Notification under Section 6 dated 18th June, 1985 and pursuant thereto, award No.23/87-88 was made for the acquisition of the land ad measuring 5 Bighas and 15 Biswas of agricultural land forming part of Khasra No.618 situated in the revenue estate of the village Maidan Garhi, New Delhi, for public purpose of planned development of Delhi. The petitioner has asserted that he purchased the said land from the erstwhile owners, namely, Sh. Mahinder, Sh. Rajinder, Sh. Inder, all sons of Sh. Prabhu Dayal, Sh. Jagdish, Sh. Manohar, Smt. Roopwati, Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Sh. Mukhtiar Singh vide agreement to Sell dated 22nd august, 2005, General Power of attorney and eight registered Wills, all dated 23rd august, 2005 and took the possession vide letter dated 22nd august, 2005. after the purchase of the said land, the petitioner has become the owner and has been in continuous peaceful possession of the said land.

3. The petitioner has claimed that though the award was made in the year 1986, the possession of the said land was never acquired by the respondents. It is asserted that possession of the said land has always remained with the predecessors of the petitioner and thereafter, with him continuously till date. The Notification No. F.9(16)/80/L&B dated 25th November, 1980 for acquisition was issued in the year 1980; however, despite of the lapse of 34 years, no planned development for revenue estate of village Maidangarhi in the NCT of Delhi has been envisaged in the 'Master Plan for Delhi-1962' and it remains the same even in the 'Master Plan for Delhi-2021'. Moreover, no compensation has ever been paid or deposited in the court as mandated under Section 31 of the Old act. Under Chapter 4, Section 24 of the New Land acquisition act, the State acquisition proceedings are declared null and void and lapsed under two contingencies, namely, where the award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the New Land acquisition act which came into effect from 01st January, 2014, and the possession of the land has not been taken over or where the compensation has not been paid. The entire acquisition proceedings are thus deemed to have lapsed under the New Land acquisition act and have become null and void. Once the acquisition has lapsed, the Government has to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the New Land acquisition act as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & anr. Vs. Harak Chand Misiri Mal Solanki &Ors in Civil appeal No.877/2014. Similar observations have been made in identical situations in Bharat Kumar vs. State of Haryana [Civil appeal No.3871/2014], Bimla Devi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [Civil appeal No.3871/2014] and Union of India & Ors. vs. Shivraj & Ors. [Civil appeal No.5478-5483/2014]. It is asserted that the respondents have failed to accept the mandate of law and are refusing to accept that the acquisition has lapsed.

4. Therefore, prayer is made that a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ may be issued declaring the entire acquisition to have lapsed and further direct the respondents not to disturb or hinder the possessio