$~82

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 14.12.2015

+

WP(C) No. 6859/2015 & CM 12555/2015

ARUN SAHNI & ANR

.... Petitioners

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners

: Mr Achal Gupta

For the Respondent L&B/LAC

: Mr Siddharth Panda

For the Respondent DDA

: Mr Pawan Mathur

CORAM:-

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1.

The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Panda on behalf of

respondent nos. 2 & 3 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the

petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and reiterates the

contents of the writ petition.

2015:DHC:10189-DB

2.

The petitioners seek 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. 15/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of

the petitioners’ land comprised in Khasra Nos. 738/1/1 (0-14), 738/1/2 (0-

14), 738/2/1 (1-16), 738/2/2 (1-8) and 787/1 (0-4) measuring 4 bighas

and 16 biswas in all in village Chattarpur, Delhi, shall be deemed to have

lapsed.

3.

Insofar as khasra no. 738 and its sub divisions are concerned, it is

admitted by the respondents that the physical possession of the same has

not been taken. As regards khasra no. 787, the stand of the respondents is

that physical possession of the said land was taken on 01.08.2013. This is

disputed by the petitioners, who claim to be in actual physical possession

of the entire subject land.

2015:DHC:10189-DB

4.

In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, the same

has not been paid to the petitioners but according to the respondents, the

same has been deposited in the treasury.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further

submitted that the writ petition ought to be thrown out on the ground that

it has been filed on behalf of subsequent purchasers. The learned counsel

submitted that the petitioners had purchased the land after the issuance of

the notifications under section 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act. He also

submitted that it is settled law that a subsequent purchaser has no right to

challenge the acquisition proceeding and has only a limited right to

receive compensation. He placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision

in the case of KN Aswathnarayana Setty(D) Tr.LRs.& Ors. Vs. State of

Karnataka & Ors. AIR 2014 SC 279. According to the learned counsel,

the Supreme Court held that a person who purchases land subsequent to

the issuance of a notification for acquisition is not competent to challenge

the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever. He

contended that the sale deed executed in favour of the subsequent

purchaser does not confer upon him any title and at the most he could

claim compensation on the basis of the vendors title. A reference was

2015:DHC:10189-DB

also made to the Supreme Court decision: Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant

Governor of Delhi and Ors.:(2008) 9 SCC 177.

6.

While it is true that, in the context of 1894 Act, the Supreme Court

has held that a subsequent purchaser would not have a right to challenge

the acquisition and would only have a right to compensation, we agree

with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present petition as it

now stands is not a challenge to the acquisition proceedings but a petition

seeking declaration of rights which had accrued to the petitioners by

virtue of the deeming provision of section 24(2) of 2013 Act. Once the

acquisi