DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJESH DUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 6478 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1894") with regard to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2013"), the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) In the present case, the land in question was acquired in the year 1964 and the award was declared in the year 1967. According to the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and so stated in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, the possession of the land in question was taken over in the year 1967 by drawing the panchnama. The compensation with respect to the land in question was duly deposited with the Reference Court in the year 1967 itself. That thereafter the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein - original writ petitioners filed the writ petition before the High Court in the year 2017 and prayed to declare that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the compensation was not actually tendered/paid to the landowners. Relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Smt. Harbans Kaur Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. [W.P.(C) 5358 of 2014, decided on 2/2/2015], in which after relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, it was held that the depositing of the amount of compensation with the Reference Court cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the landowners and the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed as actual physical possession of the subject land has not been taken over by the land acquiring agency. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.