RAJESH THAKUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the relief claimed is a declaration that by reason of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter referred to as the "new Act"), the acquisition proceedings initiated under the now repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as the "old Act"), have lapsed.

(2.) The respondents have entered appearance and filed their reply. The stated position of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) which published a notification under the old Act and whose LAC also determined the compensation is as follows:

(3.) The petitioners rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., 2014 3 SCC 183. It is contended that since the requirement of Section 24(2) of the new Act are not cumulative but alternative, even if arguendo, it was accepted that paper possession/symbolic possession of the land was taken by the respondents, nevertheless, non-payment of compensation entitles relief under Section 24(2). Learned counsel for the respondents contends, on the other hand, that since possession was concededly taken on 31.12.2013, the relief ought not to be granted. In Pune Municipal Corporation , the Supreme Court had the occasion to interpret Section 24(2) of the new Act. The provision reads as follows: