ALIMUDDIN Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
LAWS(DLH)-2014-12-582
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on December 22,2014

ALIMUDDIN Appellant
VERSUS
Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KN 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 the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as he would be relying upon the averments made in the writ petition.
(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.21/1992-93 dated 18.06.1992 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner s land comprised in Khasra No.553/491/421 measuring 2 bighas and 06 biswas in all in village-Jasola, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
(3.)The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the possession of the subject land was taken on 19.01.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputes this position and maintains that the physical possession of the subject land is with the petitioner. In so far as the compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that no compensation has been paid. 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 KN 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.