OM PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-132
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on March 10,2015

OM PRAKASH Appellant
VERSUS
Union of India And Ors. Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. - (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. 15/87 -88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1574 Min (2 -08) , 1578 Min (1 -15) , 1584/1 -2 (4 -16) , 1585/1 -3 (4 -16) , 1586 (4 -16) , 1593/1 (0 -10) , 1593/2 (0 -3) , 1595 (4 -16) measuring 24 bighas in all in village Chattarpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.
(2.)THE stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said land was taken on 01.08.2013. This is disputed by the petitioner, who claims to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.
It is stated by the respondents that insofar as the question of compensation is concerned, part of the same has been deposited pursuant to an order passed by the Vacation Judge of this court in CM Main No. 1411/2013 passed on 30.12.2013. Furthermore, part of the amount has been deposited in the Government Treasury. We have already held in several decisions that such deposit would not amount to the payment of compensation inasmuch as the same had not been offered or tendered to the land owners. The respondents, however, 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, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Ordinance") .

(3.)SO far as the applicability of the second Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon by the respondents inasmuch as the said Ordinance has been held to be prospective in nature and does not take away vested rights. This has so been held by the Supreme Court in recent decision in M/s. Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 4283/2011 wherein the Supreme Court 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."

;


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