Decided on February 02,2015

Gurbakshish Singh Batra Appellant
Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. Respondents


Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. - (1.)THE counter affidavit handed over by Mr. Pathak on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 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 on the averments contained 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. A declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which Award No. 21/92 -93 dated 18.06.1992 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos.409(1 -00) measuring 1 Bigha in all in village Jasola shall be deemed to have lapsed.
Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 16.07.2007, the petitioner disputes this and maintains that physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not been paid.

(3.)THE learned counsel for the respondent, however, places reliance on the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, which came into effect on 31.12.2014 whereby the second Proviso has been added to sub -section 2 to Section 24 of the 2013 Act. The said plea, however, is no longer available to the respondents in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Radiance Fincap (P) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 4283/2011 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:
"The right conferred to the land holders/owners of the acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is the statutory right and, therefore, the said right cannot be taken away by an Ordinance by inserting proviso to the abovesaid sub -section without giving retrospective effect to the same."

The same view has also been reiterated in Karnail Kaur & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 7424/2013 decided by the Supreme Court on 22.01.2015.


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