CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2018) 03 DEL CK 0289

Sushil Chauhan & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors

Delhi High Court · Decided on 6 March 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.S.Sistani, J · Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 322 Of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 378 words

G.S.Sistani, J

1.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceeding with

respect to land of the petitioners having half joint share comprised in Khasra nos.68 min (02-04), 68 min (0-05), total measuring 02 bighas 09 biswas,

situated in the revenue estate of village Madanpur Khadar, Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “subject landâ€) stands lapsed in

view of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter

referred to as “2013 Actâ€​).

2.

Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents.

3.

Counsel for the LAC submits that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as possession of the subject land was taken on 18.12.1980 and

handed over to the DDA. Further as per the Naksha Mutzamin, the compensation was paid to the recorded owner on 15.01.1981. However, the

compensation with regard to Gopi S/o Ramji Lal was sent to the Court of ADJ. Paras 7 to 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC read as under :-

“7. That Award No.87-88/80-81 was made on 29.11.1980 covering Khasra No.68 (02-04) also.

8.

The possession of Khasra No.68 (02-04) was taken by the answering respondents on 18.12.1980 and was handed over to DDA for the purposes

acquired.

9.

That as per Naksha Mutzamin compensation was paid to the recorded owners namely Jeet Singh S/o Durga an amount of Rs.5,692.50/- on

15.01.1981 compensation on behalf of Gopi s/o Ramji Lal was sent to ADJ u/s 30-31. That in the present case possession has been taken and

compensation has been paid to the respective recorded owners and hence there is no lapse attracting section 24 (2) of the New Act.â€​

4.

At this stage, counsel for the petitioners wishes to withdraw this petition. He submits that after obtaining necessary documents with respect to the

payment, if any available, he would approach the Court again.

5.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Leave, as prayed, is granted to the petitioner to approach the Court again, if averments

made in the counter affidavit with regard to compensation sent to the Court of ADJ as per the LAC are incorrect.