LexDELHI ADMINISTRATION THR. SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS. versus PAWAN KUMAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 791 DELHI ADMINISTRATION THR. SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS. v. PAWAN KUMAR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022) MAY 06, 2022 [HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 4 and 6 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Claim of – Respondent purchased property after the publication of notice u/ss.4 and 6 of the 1894 Act – Appellants had deposited compensation (amount payable to original owners) by filing application in the High Court since the deposit was not accepted by the Additional District Judge, on account of the Court closed for winter vacations – The High Court passed order recording that the same shall be treated as tendered to the Court of Additional District Judge on 30.12.2013 – Respondent filed writ petition before the High Court and claimed lapse of the proceedings under 2013 Act – The High Court declared the acquisition proceedings as lapsed in view of the provisions of s. 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Held: The respondent is a purchaser after the publication of notice u/ss. 4 and 6 of the Act and in fact after the award of the Land Acquisition Collector – Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the matter of Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd., subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act – Further, the finding that compensation was not offered to the land owners and therefore the deposit in the Court cannot be regarded as payment of compensation is again not tenable in view of the judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Ors. – Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is not sustainable and same is set aside – Appeal allowed. Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors (2020) 8 SCC 129; Delhi Development Authority v. [2022] 3 S.C.R. 791 791 A B C D E F G H 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 3 S.C.R. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 decided by the Supreme Court) – relied on. Chatro Devi v. Union of India & Ors. 2005 SCC Online Delhi 279 – referred to. Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 1393 of 2014 decided by the Delhi High Court – referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 5318 of 2014. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants. Rajender Pd. Saxena, N. P. Sahni, Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya, Akshat Agarwal for M/s Saharya & Co., Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to a judgment and order dated 03.02.2015 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed in view of the earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court in Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors1. 2. The respondent purchased the land measuring 7 Bigha 1 Biswa situated in village Sayoorpur, Tehsil- Mehrauli, New Delhi on 25.11.2011. The original land owner had filed a Writ Petition No. 2276 of 1985 challenging the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,18942 dated 25.11.1980 and 20.05.1985 respectively. The Land Acquisition Collector had announced the award on 14.05.1987. The said writ petition filed by the original land owner was dismissed on 03.03.2005 in view of the order passed on the same date in Chatro Devi v. Union of India & Ors.3. Subsequently, a review application was filed by the original land owner inter alia on the ground that the objections filed under Section 5A were not considered. It was found by the High 1 W.P.(C) No. 1393 of 2014 2 For short the Act 3 2005 SCC Online Delhi 279 A B C D E F G H 793 Court that the original land owner has not given any date of filing of the objection, nor the details as to when and before whom the objections were filed. The objections were not attached with the writ petition either. Consequently, the review application was dismissed on 27.04.2006. It was thereafter, the purchaser has purchased the property on 25.11.2011. 3. The Division Bench in Gyanender Singh noticed the payment deposited by the appellant and held as under: “It is absolutely clear from the above extracts that unless and until the compensation is tendered to the persons interested, mere depositing of the compensation in the court w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.