RANJANA BHATIA Vs. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Originally this petition was filed challenging the notice dated 07.01.2010 issued under the signatures of respondent No. 2 purportedly under Section 17(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the '1894 Act'). The petition was also directed against the order dated 03.04.2010 passed by respondent No. 2. It is pertinent to note that earlier an Award No. 2193 dated 13.01.1969 had been made by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of, inter alia, the petitioner's land in Khasra No. 1103/283 (Min) comprising of 66.66 sq. yards in village Jhilmil Tahirpur.

(2.) During the pendency of the writ petition, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act') came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioner, feeling that it was entitled to the benefit of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, moved an application being CM No. 3088 of 2014 stating that the award in respect of the subject land had been passed more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. It was further stated that the possession of the said land continued to be with the petitioner and that the compensation had also not been paid. Consequently, it was submitted on the basis of these submissions that the acquisition in respect of which the award dated 13.01.1969 had been made be declared as having lapsed in view of the deeming provision of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Mr Sethi, the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that all the ingredients of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this court in the following decisions stand satisfied:-

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the possession of the subject land was not taken because of the subsistence of the interim orders passed by this court. He further submitted that the petitioner had not come forward to receive the compensation as she had filed the present petition and had obtained interim orders. He further submitted that in any event, compensation had been deposited in the competent court after obtaining directions from this court in CM (Main) No. 1406/2013 tilted Union of India v. ADJ, Shahdra by virtue of the order dated 30.12.2013 passed by a Vacation Judge of this court.