DINESH KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
LAWS(DLH)-2015-4-352
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on April 06,2015

Dinesh Kumar And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Union of India And Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MEERA SAHNI V. LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SREE BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
KARNAIL KAUR & ORS. V. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [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. Sanjay Kumar Pathak on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is taken on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit inasmuch as, according to him, all the necessary averments are contained in the writ petition. 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 1.1.2014. 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. 14/87-88 dated 26.5.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 252 (1-09) and 253/1 (5-13) measuring 7 bighas and 2 biswas in all in Village Satbari, Delhi shall be deemed to have lapsed.
(2.)The learned Counsel for the petitioners claims that the physical possession of the subject land has not been taken by the land acquiring agencies and that the petitioners continue to be in physical possession. This fact is, however, disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondents, who states that the possession was taken over on 14.7.1987.
(3.)Insofar as the question of compensation is concerned, the same has not been paid to the petitioners 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, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Ordinance").
;


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