FLASH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Flash Properties Private Limited
Union of India And Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED,J. -
(1.)(Oral) - The counter affidavit handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner seeks the benefit of Sec. 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, consequently, seeks 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. 938/2/2 (2-00), 938/2/1 (0-14), 938/1 (1-00), 960/1/1 (3-00), 960/2 (1-12), 960/1/1 Min (1-04), 959/2 Min (0-18), 960/1/2 (0-14) and 959/1 (2-18), measuring 14 bighas 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 four khasra numbers, 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 (supra), the deposit in Court cannot, in this case be, regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioners.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.