$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 23.02.2015 + WP(C) No. 7801/2014 & CM 18327/2014 MUKTESH LEKHI & ANR. Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner :Mr [ENTITY] with Mr [ENTITY], Ms [ENTITY]. Mr [ENTITY] For the Respondent Nos.1&2 : Mr [ENTITY] with Mr [ENTITY]. For the Respondent/DDA : Mr [ENTITY]. For the Respondent No.5 : Mr [ENTITY] with Mr [ENTITY]. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE [ENTITY] HON'BLE MR JUSTICE [ENTITY] JUDGMENT
[ENTITY], J (ORAL)
1. The petitioners seek 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. 14/87-88 dated 19.05.1987 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners land comprised in Khasra No. 841/2 min measuring 4 bighas and 3 biswas in all in village Satbari shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. The stand of the respondents is that physical possession of the said land was taken on 14.07.1987. This is disputed by the petitioners, who claim to be in actual physical possession of the subject land.
3. In so far as the question of compensation is concerned, the same has not been paid to the petitioner but according to the respondents, the same has been deposited in the treasury. Therefore, they seek to invoke the second Proviso to [SECTION] of the 2013 Act, which was introduced by virtue of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as "the said Ordinance").
4. So far as the applicability of the second Proviso to [SECTION] of the 2013 Act is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon by the respondents inasmuch as the said Ordinance has been held to be prospective in nature and does not take away vested rights. This has so been held by the Supreme Court in recent decision in [PRECEDENT]. decided on 12.01.2015 in [CASE NUMBER] wherein the Supreme Court held as under:-
"The right conferred to the land holders/owners of the acquired land under [SECTION] of the Act is the statutory right and, therefore, the said right cannot be taken away by an Ordinance by inserting proviso to the abovesaid sub-section without giving retrospective effect to the same."
5. The same has been reinforced by the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]. [CASE NUMBER] decided on 22.01.2015.
6. From the above decisions, it is evident that the said Ordinance is prospective in nature and the rights created in favour of the petitioners as on 01.01.2014 by virtue of the 2013 Act are undisturbed by the second Proviso to [SECTION] of the 2013 Act, which has been introduced by the said Ordinance.
7. Without going into the controversy with regard to the physical possession in so far as the two Khasra Nos. are concerned, 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 to the petitioners, but has only been deposited in the treasury, which does not amount to payment of compensation as interpreted by the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT].
8. 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.
9. As a result, the petitioners are 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.
10. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
[ENTITY], J FEBRUARY 23, 2015 [ENTITY], J kb