$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 15.12.2014 + W.P.(C) 7699/2014 M/S HARMONY PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr [ENTITY]. For the Respondent nos.2 & 3 : Mr [ENTITY] and Ms.[ENTITY]. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE [ENTITY] HON'BLE MR JUSTICE [ENTITY] JUDGMENT
[ENTITY], J (ORAL)
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking the benefit of [SECTION] of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitat[ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act) which came into effect on 01.01.2014. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act) and in respect of which the Award No.15/87-88 dated 05.06.1987 was made, inter alia in respect of the petitioner's land comprised in Khasra No.1317/1 (0-8), 1317/2 (4-8), 1315 (3-10), 1320(1-0), 1304/2 (2-16), 1318min (0-13) and 1304/1 (2-0), measuring 14 bigha and 15 biswas in Village Chhatarpur shall be deemed to have lapsed.
2. It is an admitted position that the physical possession of the subject land has not been taken by the land acquiring agency. However, insofar as the compensation is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the same has not been paid to it, whereas it is the case of the respondents that compensation was deposited in Court pursuant to an order passed by the Vacation Judge of this Court in [CASE NUMBER] passed on 30.12.2013 in respect of Khasra Nos.1317/1 (0-8), 1317/2(4-8), 1320(1-0), 1318 min (0-3) and 1304/1 (2-0). By virtue of that order, the said CM(M), amongst others, was disposed of by recording that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land holder, the cheque tendered in each petition shall be treated as tendered to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Delhi as of that date, i.e. 30.12.2013.
3. According to the respondents, this amounts to payment of compensation. However, this issue has already been settled by a decision of this Court in [PRECEDENT]. in [CASE NUMBER] decided on 23.09.2014, wherein this Court held that unless and until the compensation was tendered to the person interested, mere deposit of the compensation in Court would not be sufficient. The compensation would not be regarded as having been paid merely on the deposit of the same in Court, unless and until it is offered to the person interested and he has refused to accept the same.
4. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the compensation amount in respect of the above-mentioned Khasra numbers was tendered in this Court in [CASE NUMBER] without first being offered the same to the petitioner herein. Therefore, following the decision in [PRECEDENT] (supra), the same cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the petitioner. Insofar as the other khasra numbers are concerned, it is an admitted position that compensation has not even been deposited in Court.
5. In these circumstances, it is clear that neither physical possession of the said land has been taken by the land acquiring agency nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioner. The award was made more than 5 years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. All the ingredients necessary for the applicability of [SECTION] of the 2013 Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following decisions stands satisfied.
(i) [PRECEDENT]; (ii) [PRECEDENT];
(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v.
State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil Appeal No.
(iv) [PRECEDENT]:
WP(C) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Court; and
(v) [PRECEDENT] & Ors v. Union of India & Ors:
W.P.(C) 1393/2014.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, raised another objection and that is that this petition is not maintainable by the present petitioner in view of the fact that it is a subsequent purchaser. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in K.N.Aswathanarayana Shetty vs. State of Karnataka:
AIR 2014 SC 279. A reference was also made to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Meera vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi: 2008 (9) SC
177. It was contended that it is settled law that a subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and he is only entitled to seek compensation.
7. There is no doubt that in the context of the 1894 Act, the Supreme Court clearly held that a subsequent purchaser would not have a right to challenge the acquisition proceedings and would only have a right to seek compensation, but the position in the present case is different. The petitioner is not challenging the acquisition proceedings, but is merely seeking a declaration of its right which has enured to its benefit by virtue of the operation of [SECTION] of the 2013 Act. This issue has also been covered by a decision of this Court in [PRECEDENT]. in [CASE NUMBER] decided on 03.11.2014.
8. Consequently, the benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground that it is a subsequent purchaser once it is recognised that the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed because of the operation of the deeming provision of [SECTION] of the 2013 Act.
9. 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.
10. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
[ENTITY], J DECEMBER 15, 2014/'dc' [ENTITY], J