MAHARAJ SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-30
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on February 05,2018

MAHARAJ SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Union of India And Ors. Respondents




JUDGEMENT

G.S.SISTANI,J. - (1.)This is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to land of the petitioner falling in Khasra no.253 measuring 1 bigha and 1 biswa, situated in the revenue estate of village Saidulajab, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the subject land ) stand lapsed in view of section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 2013 Act ) as neither possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner would be fully covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & ors ., reported at (2014) 3 SCC 183.
(2.)In this case, a notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was issued on 05.11.1980. A declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 25.05.1985. Thereafter, an award bearing no.13/1987-88 was rendered on 20.05.1987.
(3.)It is the case of the petitioner that no compensation was tendered to him. In response to the objection raised in the counter affidavit filed by the LAC that the compensation has already been deposited in the court of Additional District Judge (ADJ), counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to deposit no tender was made despite the fact that the petitioner has been shown to be the recorded owner in terms of Khatauni for the year 1998-99, a copy whereof has been placed on record. Additionally, counsel submits that prior to coming into force of the 2013 Act, a C.M.(Main) was filed and post seeking orders compensation was deposited. The counsel, in support of her contention that the petitioner would fall within the definition of an interested person , relies on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and another, 2017 (6) SCC 751.
;


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