$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 08.03.2016 + WP(C) No.3749/2015 & CM 6698/2015 MRS SHIREEN SUBRAMANYA Petitioner versus LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr [ENTITY] For the Respondent DDA : Mr [ENTITY] For the Respondent L&B/LAC : Mr [ENTITY] CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE [ENTITY] HON'BLE MR JUSTICE [ENTITY] JUDGMENT
[ENTITY], J (ORAL)
1. The counter affidavit handed over by Mr [ENTITY] on behalf of the respondent nos. 2&4 is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and reiterates the contents of 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.15/1987-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra Nos. 787 (2-19), 786/1 (3-
16) and 786/2 (1-0) measuring 7 bighas 15 biswas in all in village Chhattarpur, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
3. The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said land was taken on 01.08.2013. This is disputed by the petitioner, who claims to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.
4. As regards the question of compensation, the same has not been paid to the petitioner but, according to the respondents, the same has been deposited in the treasury. Mere deposit of the compensation amount in the treasury does not amount to payment of compensation without the same having been offered to the petitioner. This is clear from the decision of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]. As such it is clear that without going into the controversy with regard to physical possession, the award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and compensation has also not been paid to the petitioner.
5. All 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] decided on 10.09.2014;
(3) [PRECEDENT] decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and (4) [PRECEDENT]:
WP(C) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court.
6. 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.
7. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
[ENTITY], J [ENTITY], J MARCH 08, 2016 kb