DEEPAK SETH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
LAWS(DLH)-2014-12-552
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on December 16,2014

Deepak Seth Appellant
VERSUS
Union of India And Ors Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

K N ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY (D) TR. LRS.& ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. [REFERRED]
MEERA SAHNI VS. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI [REFERRED]
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SHIV RAJ [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain, on behalf of Respondent nos.4 & 5 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder-affidavit, as she would be relying on the averments made in the writ petition. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3 is also taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder to this counter affidavit also for the same reason.
(2.)The petitioner seeks 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. The petitioner claims that neither possession of the subject land has been taken nor has any compensation been paid and, therefore, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which Award No.14/87-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos.25/2, 26/2, 24/2, 25/1 and 26/1, measuring 10 bighas in Village Satbari, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
(3.)It is an admitted position that neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioner. The award has, as noted above, also been made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. However, the learned counsel for the respondents contend that this petition is not maintainable by the present petitioner in view of the fact that he is a subsequent purchaser. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is settled law that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and he is only entitled to seek compensation. They placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of K N Aswathnarayana Setty (D) Tr. LRs.& Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2014 AIR(SC) 279 A reference in this connection was also made to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Ors., 2008 9 SCC 177.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.