PHOOL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, present petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the 1/3rd share of the petitioner in the land comprised in Khasra no. 29/17/2 (1-12), 18 (05-16) total area measuring 7 bighas and 8 biswas, situated in the revenue of Village Saidabad, TehsilMehrauli, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "subject land"), are deemed to have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (New Act) as the compensation has not been paid.

(2.) The necessary facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 6th April, 1964, Section 6 declaration was issued on 7th December, 1966 and thereafter Award bearing No. 29/76-77 Suppl. was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 19th September, 1986. Counsel for the petitioner contends that although the possession notice has been issued, but the compensation has not been paid. He also draws the attention of the court to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent / LAC, more particularly, Para 6 wherein it has been admitted that compensation has not been paid. Counsel for the petitioner contends as the compensation has not been paid to the petitioner, the case of the petitioner fully covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. V. Harak Chand Misirimal Solanki & Ors, 2014 3 SCC 183 and other decisions as detailed below to submit that the acquisition proceedings would lapse:

(3.) Counsel for the respondent / LAC relies on Para 6 of the counteraffidavit wherein it has been stated that as per Statement "A" part payment of the compensation with the respect to 29/17/13 (1-12) (wrongly mentioned as 29/13) was paid to hari chand, but no compensation has been paid to the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent / DDA admitted that the possession has been taken and the land has been put to use for freight complex.