$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 03.11.2015 + W.P.(C) 2595/2015 & CM 4643/2015 MANJU BALA Petitioner versus THE LT. GOVERNOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ORS. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr [ENTITY] For the Respondent LAC/L&B : Mr [ENTITY] with Ms [ENTITY] For the Respondent/DDA : Mr [ENTITY] with Mr [ENTITY] CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE [ENTITY] HON'BLE MR JUSTICE [ENTITY] JUDGMENT
[ENTITY], J (ORAL)
1. The counter affidavit handed over on behalf of respondent nos. 2&4 by Mr [ENTITY] is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as the necessary averments are already contained in the writ petition.
2. The petitioner seeks the benefit of [SECTION] of the [ACT] (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 [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act') in respect of which Award No.6/2005-06 dated 12.07.2005 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No. 50/6/2 (0-6) and 50/15 (0-
14) measuring 1 bigha in all in village Pehladpur Bangar, Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
3. Though the respondents claim that possession of the said land was taken on 31.08.2005, the petitioner disputes this and maintains 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.
4. 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] of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases stand satisfied:-
(1) [PRECEDENT];
(2) [PRECEDENT];
(3) [PRECEDENT] decided on 10.09.2014;
(4) [PRECEDENT] decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and (5) [PRECEDENT]:
WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
5. 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.
6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
[ENTITY], J NOVEMBER 03, 2015 [ENTITY], J kb