Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Nov 03, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1171816

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1171816
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Decided On: Nov 03, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sushil Kumar Gupta

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority and ors.

Excerpt

.....measuring 9 bighas 12 biswas in all in village badli shall be deemed to have lapsed.2. though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 12.11.81, the petitioner disputed this and maintain that physical possession has not been taken. however, insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not been paid.3. without going into the controversy of physical possession, this much is clear that the award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 act and the compensation has also not been paid. the necessary ingredients for the application of section 24(2) of the 2013 act as interpreted by the supreme court and this court in the following cases stand satisfied:(1) pune municipal corporation and anr v. harakchand misirimal solanki and ors: (2014) 3 scc183 (2) union of india and ors v. shiv raj and ors: (2014) 6 scc564 4. (3) sree balaji nagar residential association v. state of tamil nadu and ors: civil appeal no.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; (4) surender singh v. union of india & others: wp(c) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this court; and (5) girish chhabra v. lt. governor of delhi and ors: wp(c) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this court. as a result, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the said acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 act in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. it is so declared.5. the writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. there shall be no order as to costs. badar durrez ahmed, j november03 2014 kb w.p.(c) no.3188/2014

Full Judgment

$~ 60 (Category-III) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:

03. 11.2014 W.P.(C) 3188/2014 & CM66342014 SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA .... Petitioner versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Jasbir Singh Malik For the Respondents : Mr Yeeshu Jain with Ms Jyoti Tyagi for LAC/L&B. Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal for DDA. CORAM:HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking 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. A declaration is sought to the effect that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1894 Act’) in respect of which Award No.35/81-82 dated 10.11.1981 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner’s land comprised in Khasra Nos. 70/22(4-16), 70/23 (4-16) measuring 9 bighas 12 biswas in all in village Badli shall be deemed to have lapsed.

2. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 12.11.81, the petitioner disputed this and maintain that physical possession has not been taken. However, insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that it has not been paid.

3. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, this much is clear that the Award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been paid. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases stand satisfied:(1) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors: (2014) 3 SCC183 (2) Union of India and Ors v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC564 4. (3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; (4) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and (5) Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors: WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court. As a result, the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the said acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. It is so declared.

5. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J NOVEMBER03 2014 kb W.P.(C) No.3188/2014

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2014 Same Parties Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Delhi Development Authority and ors. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Badar Durrez Ahmed