SWARN SINGH CHAWLA Vs. UOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE reply affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to CM No. 20944/2014 has been handed over by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and the same is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder as the necessary averments are contained in the application and the writ petition.

(2.) WE may point out that the writ petition had been filed in 2002 challenging the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. During its pendency, 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. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed CM No. 20944/2014 seeking a declaration to the effect that the acquisition proceeding, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, ought to be deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

(3.) IT is an admitted position that the physical possession of the subject land has not been taken by the land acquiring agency. However, the learned counsel for the respondents contend that the physical possession could not be taken because of the operation of the stay order passed in this very petition [i.e., W.P.(C) No. 3494/2002] which has continued to operate since 05.04.2002. Clearly, the stay order was in operation on 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act came into effect. In fact it continues to operate till today. This aspect of the matter concerning the submission that possession could not be taken because of the operation of the stay order and that in such a situation the respondents should not be prejudiced, was considered by this Court in the case of Jagjit Singh & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors.: W.P.(C) 2806/2004 and other connected matters which were decided by this Court on 27.05.2014. In that decision, this Court observed as under: -