JITENDER KUMAR CHURAMANI AND ORS. Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-453
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on March 02,2015

Jitender Kumar Churamani And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SHIV RAJ [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 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.
(2.)By way of this writ petition the petitioners seek 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 petitioners, consequently, seek a declaration that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "1894 Act") and in respect of which Award No. 15/87- 88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land, comprised in Khasra Nos. 1334/2(4-01), 1335/2 (0-09), 1335/3/2 (0- 1), 1335/5 (2-2), 1335/6 (1-9), 1336(4-16) and 1337(4-16), measuring 17 bighas and 14 biswas in all, in village Chattarpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.
(3.)In this case, it has been admitted by the concerned Land Acquisition Collector that physical possession of the subject land has not been taken. It is, however, contended that in respect of one khasra number, the compensation was deposited in Court in CM(Main) No.1411/2013 on 30.12.2013 pursuant to an order passed by this Court in the said matter. It is also contended that the balance compensation was deposited in the Treasury. Insofar as the question of deposit in Court is concerned, the same has already been considered by us in Gyanender Singh v Union of India & Ors: W.P.(C) 1393/2014 decided on 23.09.2014 wherein this Court held that unless and until the compensation is tendered to the persons interested, mere depositing of the compensation in the court would not be sufficient and cannot be regarded as having been paid. Therefore, following the decision in Gyanender Singh , the deposit in Court cannot, in this case be, regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioners.
;


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