Decided on December 08,2014

Amarjeet Rewari Appellant


Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. - (1.)MR . Yeeshu Jain has handed over the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The said counter affidavit is taken on record.
(2.)IN paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit an objection is taken that the petitioners have not placed on record any document showing their entitlement to file the present writ petition. Nor has there been any averment qua their right in respect of the right, title and interest concerning the lands in question. Paragraph 1 of the writ petition belies this statement inasmuch as it has been clearly stated therein that the petitioners are the legal heirs of late Shri Shyam Sunder Singh Rewari and late Shri Nand Kumar Rewari who had undivided interest in the subject land. The petitioners are the widows and sons, respectively, of late Shri Shyam Sunder Singh Rewari and late Shri Nand Kumar Rewari whose names clearly appear in the Khasra Girdawaris, copies of which have been placed as annexure P -2 (collectively) . Therefore, the objection as to the locus of the petitioners, which has been raised on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, is not supported by the pleadings and or the material on record. The petitioners are entitled to bring this petition in respect of the subject land.
The learned counsel for the petitioners states that this matter is covered by the decision of this court in the case of Girish Chhabra v. 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. 15/87 -88 dated 05.06.1987 and Award No. 24/87 -88 dated 09.07.1987 were made. 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 - Chhatarpur in Khasra Nos.915/1(0 -13) and 923/1/2(0 -12) measuring 1 bigha 5 biswas in all.

(3.)ADMITTEDLY , physical possession of the subject land was taken on 17.07.2013. The learned counsel for the respondents states that though compensation has not been paid in respect of Khasra No. 915/1, compensation was paid in respect of the other Khasra No. 923/1/2. He states that the said payment was made by virtue of a deposit made in court pursuant to an order passed by a Vacation Judge of this court in CM(Main) No. 1403/2013 on 30.12.2013. By virtue of that order the said CM(Main) , amongst others, was disposed of by recording that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land holders the cheque tendered in each petition would be treated as tendered to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi as of that date, i.e., 30.12.2013. According to Mr. Jain this amounts to payment of compensation. This issue has been settled by a decision of this court in Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. WP(C) No. 1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014 wherein this court held that compensation cannot be regarded as having been paid merely on the deposit of the same in court unless and until it has first been offered to the person interested and he has refused to accept the same. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the compensation amount was tendered in this court in the said CM(Main) without first being offered to the petitioners herein. Therefore, such deposit cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioners.

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