RAJAN ANAND Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)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.14/1987-88 dated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners land comprised in Khasra No. 975 measuring 4 bighas and 16 biswas in all in village Satbari, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
(2.)The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said land was taken on 14.07.1987. This is disputed by the petitioner, who claims to be in actual physical possession of the subject land. At this juncture we may also point out that one Mr. O.P. Sachdeva has filed CM No. 5974/2015 seeking impleadment in this writ petition on the ground that he is the owner in possession. This fact is vehemently disputed by the petitioner who claims to be the owner in possession. As pointed out above, physical possession is said to have been taken by the land acquiring agency on 14.07.1987. Therefore, the situation which prevails is that the issue with regard to physical possession between the petitioner and the said Mr. O.P. Sachdeva on the one hand and the land acquiring agency on the other is disputed. As regards ownership and title, that fact is also in dispute between the petitioner and the said Mr. Sachdeva and this court is not entering into that controversy. The petitioner as well as the said Mr. Sachdeva would have to independently fight out their claim to title in an appropriate proceeding before an appropriate forum. We are here only concerned with the question of the acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act having lapsed or not.
(3.)In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, the same has not been paid to the petitioner but, according to the respondents, the same has been deposited in the treasury. Therefore, they seek to invoke the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which was introduced by virtue of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Ordinance").
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.