IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 13.04.2015
WP(C) No. 8350/2014 CM 19345/2014
M/S CLEAR WATER ANR. …. Petitioners
UNION OF INDIA ORS. ….. Respondents
Advocates who seemed in this case:
For a Petitioners : Mr Sumeer Sodhi with Mr Arjun Nanda, Mr Mohit Malhotra.
For a Respondent No.1 : Mr Abhay Prakash Sahay.
For a Respondent DDA :Mr Pawan Mathur with Mr Himanshu Gupta.
For a Respondent Nos. 34 : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi.
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. The opposite confirmation on interest of respondent nos. 3 4 is handed over by Mr Yeeshu Jain. The same is taken on record. The schooled warn for a petitioners does not wish to record any retort confirmation inasmuch as he would be relying on a averments already contained in a command petition.
2. The petitioners find a advantage of Section 24(2) of a Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as „the 2013 Act?) that came into outcome on 01.01.2014. A stipulation is sought to a outcome that a merger move instituted underneath a Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as „the 1894 Act?) in honour of that Award No. 14/87-88 antiquated 26.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in honour of a petitioners? land comprised in Khasra Nos. 777/2 (3-10), 781/1-2/2 (4-03) measuring 7 bighas and 13 biswas in all in encampment Satbari shall be deemed to have lapsed.
3. The mount of a respondents is that earthy possession of a pronounced land was taken on 14.07.1987. This is doubtful by a petitioners, who explain to be in tangible earthy possession of a theme land.
4. In so distant as a doubt of remuneration is concerned, a same has not been paid to a petitioners though according to a respondents, a same has been deposited in a treasury. Therefore, they find to plead a second Proviso to Section 24(2) of a 2013 Act, that was introduced by trait of a Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the pronounced Ordinance”).
5. So distant as a qualification of a second Proviso to Section 24(2) of a 2013 Act is concerned, a same can't be relied on by a respondents inasmuch as a identical sustenance introduced by a preceding bidding of 2014 has been hold to be impending in inlet and does not take divided vested rights. This has so been hold by a Supreme Court in M/s Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. Ors. Vs. Union of India Ors. motionless on 12.01.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 4283/2011 wherein a Supreme Court hold as under:-
“The right conferred to a land holders/owners of a acquired land underneath Section 24(2) of a Act is a orthodox right and, therefore, a pronounced right can't be taken divided by an Ordinance by inserting portion to a abovesaid sub-section though giving retrospective outcome to a same.”
6. The same has been reinforced by a Supreme Court in Karnail Kaur Ors. Vs. State of Punjab Ors. Civil Appeal No. 7424/2013 motionless on 22.01.2015.
7. From a above decisions, it is transparent that a pronounced Ordinance is impending in inlet and a rights combined in foster of a petitioners as on 01.01.2014 by trait of a 2013 Act are composed by a second Proviso to Section 24(2) of a 2013 Act, that has been introduced by a pronounced Ordinance.
8. Without going into a debate with courtesy to a earthy possession, this most is transparent that a Award was done some-more than 5 years before to a derivation of a 2013 Act and a remuneration has also not been paid to a petitioners, though has usually been deposited in a treasury, that does not volume to remuneration of remuneration as interpreted by a Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC 183.
9. All a required mixture for a focus of Section 24(2) of a 2013 Act as interpreted by a Supreme Court and this Court in a following cases mount satisfied:-
(1) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;
(2) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013 motionless on 10.09.2014;
(3) Surender Singh v. Union of India Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 motionless on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(4) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors: WP(C) 2759/2014 motionless on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
10. As a result, a petitioners are entitled to a stipulation that a pronounced merger record instituted underneath a 1894 Act in honour of a theme land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.
11. The command petition is authorised to a aforesaid extent. There shall be no sequence as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 13, 2015.