$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 14.03.2016 + W.P.(C) 1178/2015 & CM No.2075/2015 KRISHAN KUMAR & ANR. Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners : Mr [ENTITY], Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr [ENTITY], CGSC with Mr [ENTITY], Advocate for UOI Mr [ENTITY], CGSC with Ms [ENTITY], Adv. for UOI Mr [ENTITY] with Ms [ENTITY], Advocates for L&B/LAC Mr [ENTITY], Ms [ENTITY] and Ms [ENTITY], Advocates CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE [ENTITY] HON'BLE MR JUSTICE [ENTITY] JUDGMENT
[ENTITY], J (ORAL)
1. The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No.4 has been handed over by Mr [ENTITY]. The same is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit and reiterates the contents of the writ petition in response to the said counter affidavit.
2. 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.1934-D/81-82 dated 19.10.1981 was made, inter alia, in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (1-12) (to the extent of 1 bigha only) measuring 4 bigha 5 biswas in all in village Molarband, New Delhi, shall be deemed to have lapsed.
3. Though the respondents claimed that possession of the said land was taken on 10.04.1997, the petitioners dispute 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.
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 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.
6. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
[ENTITY], J MARCH 14, 2016 [ENTITY], J rs