AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AGRA versus ANEK SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 255 · Decided: 20-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
255
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 255
255
AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AGRA
v.
ANEK SINGH AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2914 of 2022)
MAY 20, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition – Lapse of proceedings – High Court while
relying upon the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case, had
held that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in
question had lapsed under sub-section (2) of s.24 of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as the amount of
compensation was not actually paid to the land owners – On appeal,
held: Since the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case was
subsequently overruled by a Constitution Bench in Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal case , the order passed by the
High Court is unsustainable and is therefore quashed and set aside
– Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others
(2020) 8 SCC 129: [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Another v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others (2014) 3
SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783  
Para 3
referred to
[2020] 3 SCR 1
Para 3.1
followed
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2914
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.13927 of 2016
V. K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., R. K. Singh, M. M. Pandey, Mrs. Neeraj
Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Praveen Pathak, Ajay Chaudhary, Ms. Ritu
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
Reniwal, Sajith P., Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Sameer Kulshreshtha, Rakesh
Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Rishabh Kumar Pandey,
Mridul Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
S. R. Singh, Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Advs., Yash Pal Dhingra, Prateek
Yadav, Ms. Sunita Pandit, K. K. Yadav, Prithvi Yadav, Gaurav Lomes,
Mohd. Muztaba, Ankur Yadav, Ms. Manju Jetley, Rudreshwar Singh,
Kaushik Poddar, Ms. Isha Singh, Nishit Agrawal, Harsh Mishra, Kumar
Deepraj, Vikas Tiwari, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Bhakti Vardhan Singh,
Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra,
Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ms. Anupama Ngangom,
Mohan Dadwal, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.13927 of 2016 by which the High Court
has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents herein
original writ petitioners and has held that the acquisition proceedings
with respect to the land in question shall be deemed to have lapsed
under Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the Agra
Development Authority, Agra has preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. We
have perused and considered the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court.
3. Before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of the
Agra Development Authority – appellant herein that as such the possession
of the land in question was already taken over and even the name of the
Authority was mutated in the revenue records. It was also the specific
case on behalf of the Authority that possession of the land in question
was with them but the original writ petitioners illegally occupied it again.
It was also the case on behalf of the Authority that the development
works have already been carried out on the land in question and the
entire compensation had already been deposited with the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. It was also the case on behalf of the Authority that
the original writ petitioners deliberately did not take the compensation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
257
for the remaining plot measuring 6 Biswa and 15 Biswansi and therefore,
on account of the fault of the writ petitioners, the acquisition proceedings
cannot lapse. However, by the impugned judgment and order the High
Court has held and declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect
to the land in question shall be deemed to have lapsed under sub-section
(2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 on the ground that the amount of
compensation w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.