JOGINDER PAL KAUR AND ANR vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision : 09.05.2024

+ W.P.(C) 687/2016

JOGINDER PAL KAUR AND ANR ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr.Sunil Mittal, Sr Advocate with Ms.Seema Seth and Ms.Muskan Deswal, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, SPC for UOI.
Ms.Zehra Khan and Ms.Awantta Shankar, Advocates for R2 and R3.
Ms.Manika Tripathy, SC, Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik and Mr.Naveen K Sarswat, Advocates for DDA.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioners claim to be the owners of one bigha each of land comprising in Khasra No.62, situated in the revenue estate of Village Behlolpur Khadar, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi (hereafter the subject land). They have filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the notification dated 23.06.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter the 1894 Act) and subsequent declaration / notification dated 22.06.1990 issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act – which includes the acquisition of the subject land – be set aside.
2. The petitioners also claim that acquisition of the subject land has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter the 2013 Act).
3. Initially, the present petition was allowed by a judgment dated 10.04.2017 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 687/2017, following the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors.: (2014) 3 SCC 183, on the ground that there is no dispute that the compensation has not been paid.
4. The said decision has since been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal and Ors.: (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Court had explained that the acquisition would lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act only if the twin conditions – possession has not been taken over and compensation has not been paid – are cumulatively satisfied.
5. In the present case, the respondent has filed an affidavit affirming that the possession of the subject land was taken over. Mr. Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners fairly states that the petitioners are not in a position to contest the same.
6. In view of the above, the prayer that the acquisition of the subject land has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be granted. Mr Mittal further submits that there is an issue as to the payment of the compensation and the petitioners would be entitled to claim enhanced compensation. We do not propose to address the said issue as no relief in this regard has been sought. The petitioners are at liberty to avail remedies in this regard, if any, in accordance with law.
7. The petition stands disposed of in above terms.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
MAY 09, 2024
M

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

W.P.(C) No.687/2016 Page 2 of 2