*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 03.03.2015

+

W.P.(C) 4994/2014 & CM 9980/2014

SUSHIL KUMAR KASANA & ANR

.... Petitioners

versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners

: Mr Lalit Kumar Rawal with Mr Ram Kumar Ranga and

Mr Vishal Thakur

For the Respondent Nos.1-2 : Mr Siddharth Panda

For the Respondent No.3

: Mr Pawan Mathur

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1.

Mr Siddharth Panda, the learned counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.1 and 2 has handed over the affidavit on behalf of Land Acquisition

Collector (North-East). The same is taken on record. The learned counsel

for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder/affidavit inasmuch as

all the necessary averments are contained in the writ petition.

2015:DHC:2054-DB

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioners states that this matter is

covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Girish Chhabra vs. Lt.

Governor of Delhi and Ors.: W.P.(C) 2759/2011 decided on 12.09.2014.

He states that although possession of the subject land has been taken, the

award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

1894 Act’) was made more than five years prior to the commencement 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. In this case Award

No.12/1992-93 was made on 19.06.1992. He also states that compensation

has not yet been paid to the petitioners. Therefore, the requirements of

section 24(2) of the 2013 Act have been fulfilled and the petitioners are

entitled to a declaration that the subject acquisition under the 1894 Act has

lapsed. The land in question is situated in Village Sadatpur Gujran in Khasra

No.194 measuring 1 bigha 6 biswas in all.

3.

Admittedly, though physical possession of the subject land has been

taken on 18.03.2013 pursuant to the orders passed in WP(C) 7057/2005,

compensation has not been paid to the petitioners. The Award is also more

than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Consequently,

2015:DHC:2054-DB

the decision of this Court in Girish Chhabra (supra) applies on all fours and

the subject acquisition has lapsed.

4.

The respondents have also objected on the ground that the petitioners

are subsequent purchasers. They placed reliance on the Supreme Court

decisions in KN Aswathnarayana Setty(D) Tr.LRs.& Ors. v. State of

Karnataka & Ors.:AIR 2014 SC 279 and Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant

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

5.

There is no doubt that in the context of the 1894 Act the Supreme

Court clearly held that a subsequent purchaser would not have a right to

challenge the acquisition and would only have a right to seek compensation.

But, the position obtaining at present is different. This is a petition which

does not seek to challenge the acquisition proceedings but seeks a

declaration of a right which has enured to the benefit of the petitioners by

virtue of the operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Once the acquisition

is deemed to have lapsed because of the operation of the deeming provision

of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the benefit of the same cannot be denied to

the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are subsequent purchasers.

This is, of course, provided that the conditions precedent for the application

2015:DHC:2054-DB

of the deeming provision contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are

satisfied, which they are in the present case.

6.

The writ petition is allowed by declaring that the acquisition in respect

of the subject land has lapsed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

MARCH 03, 2015