Judgment
$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:
31. t October, 2014 + W.P.(C) 1682/2014 JAGBIR SINGH & ORS. Represented by: ..... Petitioners Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik and Mr. Manoj Joshi, Advocates. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms. Mrinalini S. Gupta, Ms.Ruhi Chopra and Mr. Mrinmoyi Chaterjee, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.
(Oral) W.P.(C) 1682/2014 1. As stated in the present petition that respondent No.1/Government of NCT of Delhi, has issued Notification dated 04.06.2014 under Section 4 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (in short ‘LA Act’). The Land Acquisition Collector passed award No.4 of 2006-07 qua the land belonging to the petitioner falling in Khasra No.27/2/20 (3-12) without issuance of any notice to the petitioners.
2. Further stated that the land in question enjoins the statutory protection under Section 3 of The National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011, from dispossession or any other coercive action as the land in question forms part of the Mange Ram Park Colony, which came into existence much prior to 31.03.2002.
3. Mr.Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that even otherwise the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed in the present case under the legal fiction of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (in short ‘the New Act’) stipulates that the land acquisition process under the LA Act, in a case where the possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, shall be deemed to have lapsed if any award under Section 11 of the LA Act, has been made before five years or more prior to the commencement of the New Act.
4. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents jointly submit that the issue under Section 24(2) of the New Act is pending before the Double Bench of this Court, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner wishes to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file appropriate writ before the appropriate Court.
6. Liberty granted as prayed for.
7. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn. CM No.3520/2014 (for stay) With the dismissal of the instant petition, this application has become infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed. SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) OCTOBER31 2014 sb