MANAV DHARMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act') which came into effect on 01.01.2014.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that the possession of the subject land is with the petitioner and the respondents have not taken possession of the same. He also submits that the Award was made on 19.09.1986 (Award No. 207/1986 -87), which is more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. He also submits that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. Therefore, all the ingredients necessary for deeming the acquisition to have lapsed, as provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, have been satisfied.

(3.) IF we examine the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: : (2014) 3 SCC 183, it would be found that the Supreme Court took the view that for the purposes of Section 24(2), compensation shall be regarded as "paid" if the compensation has been offered to the person interested and such compensation has been deposited in the Court where a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could be made on the happening of any of the contingencies contemplated under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act reads as under: -