LexAYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. versus RAM NEWAJ AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 3 S.C.R. [2022] 3 S.C.R. 250 250 AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. v. RAM NEWAJ AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.2916 of 2022) MAY 20, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court allowed writ petition preferred by respondents–original writ petitioners and held that acquisition proceedings in respect of the three plots in question pertaining to the original writ petitioners stand lapsed under subsection (2) of s.24 of the 2013 Act – It was so held by the High Court, solely on the ground that, though deposit of compensation was made in the Treasury, but the same was not deposited in the Court and consequently payment of compensation was not made to the land owners – Held: Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority and in the present case as the amount of compensation was deposited with the Treasury and even the possession was already taken over on 07.09.2005, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is unsustainable. Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – relied on. Delhi Development Authority versus Sukhbir Singh and others, (2016) 16 SCC 258 : [2016] 5 SCR 227 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2016] 5 SCR 227 referred to Para 3 [2020] 3 SCR 1 relied on Para 3 A B C D E F G H 251 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2916 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Misc. Bench No.3962 of 2005. V. K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., R. K. Singh, M. M. Pandey, Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Praveen Pathak, Ajay Chaudhary, Ms. Ritu 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 dated 19.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Miscellaneous Bench No.3962 of 2005 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 in respect of the three plots in question pertaining to the original writ petitioners stand 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 Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority and another has preferred the present appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. 3. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has held that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the three plots in question AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. v. RAM NEWAJ AND OTHERS A B C D E F G H 252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 3 S.C.R. shall stand lapsed under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that, though the deposit of the compensation was made in the Treasury, but the same was not deposited in the Court and consequently the payment of compensation of the amount was not made to the land owners. The High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority versus Sukhbir Singh and others, (2016) 16 SCC 258. However, in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. In paragraph 366 of the aforesaid judgment this Court has observed and held as und
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.