Dinesh Kumar vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings

initiated in respect of the land of petitioner comprised in Khasra no.1437, measuring 800 sq. yds., situated in the revenue estate of village Rangpuri @

Malikpur Kohi, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the subject landâ€​) are deemed to have 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 the “2013 Actâ€​), as

neither the compensation has been tendered to the petitioner nor possession of the subject land has been taken.

It is the case of the petitioner that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Actâ€​) was

issued on 27.06.1996, a Section 6 declaration was made on 03.03.1997. Thereafter, an Award bearing no.03/98-99 was rendered on 26.02.1999.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by provisions of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act, as neither

compensation has been paid to the petitioner nor possession of subject land has been taken.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the decision of the Constitution Bench would have no bearing in the present case, as admittedly, the

compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the LAC. Para 11 of counter affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under :

“11. That as regards possession, it is humbly submitted the possession of the land comprised in Khasra No.1437 taken on 31/12/13. So far as

compensation is concerned the compensation amount has not been received from requisitioning authority. Thus, the compensation amount could not be

paid to the interested persons.â€​ Â

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the LAC submits that the possession of subject land has been taken on 31.12.2013. However, he

fairly admits that the compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner as the same has not been received by the LAC from the beneficiary

department.

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered their rival submissions.Â

Reading of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC leaves no room for doubt that no compensation has not been paid to the petitioner and thus, one of

the two ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act is accordingly met. Â

Having regard to the fact that the compensation has not been tendered to the petitioner and since the Award having been announced more than five

years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the case of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, thus, the

petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to the subject land are

deemed to have lapsed. It is ordered accordingly.

The writ petition stands disposed of.