LexDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus AMIT JAIN & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 91 [2023] 3 S.C.R. 91 91 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. AMIT JAIN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1360 of 2023) FEBRUARY 24, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that the entire acquisition with respect to the suit land is deemed to have lapsed u/ s.24(2) – It was the specific case on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) that the physical possession of the lands in question was duly taken over by the Government except the 3 biswa land comprised in Khasra No. 17/1/1 which was not taken due to built- up – Held: – Original writ petitioners disputed the actual taking over of possession and submitted that the possession was taken over by drawing proceedings – As held by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. reported as [2020] 3 SCR 1, taking over the physical possession by drawing the punchnama/possession proceedings can be said to be sufficient compliance – Thus, applying the law laid down therein and considering the fact that except the aforesaid 3 biswa land, the possession of the other lands in question was taken over by the Government, there shall be no deemed lapse with respect to the entire acquisition of the lands in question u/s.24(2) – Impugned judgment set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed. Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2014] 1 SCR 783 referred to Para 2 [2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 3 A B C D E F G H 92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1360 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2017 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.5061 of 2016. Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. Ankit Kumar, Rishibah Pandey, Ms. Manju Jetley, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, 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 Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 5061 of 2016, by which, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition of suit land measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas in Khasra Nos. 10/20/2/1 (2-00) and 21/1 (1-18) and 17/1 (1-9) and land measuring 1 bigha and 9 biswas in Khasra No. 17/1/1 (2-01) vide award No. 04/2008-09 dated 31.10.2008 is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal. 2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and from the counter affidavit filed by the Govt. of Delhi through LAC before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the LAC that the physical possession of the property/land bearing Khasra Nos. 17/1/1 min (1-18), 10/20/2/1 (2-0), 21/1 (1-18) was duly taken over by the Government on 29.01.2010. However, remaining 3 biswa land comprised in Khasra No. 17/1/1 was not taken over due to built- up. Despite the above and thereafter following the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, on the ground that the compensation with respect to the lands in question is not paid/tendered to the land owners, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the entire acquisition with respect to the land measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas in Khasra Nos. 10/20/2/1 (2- 00) and 21/1 (1-18) and 17/1 (1-9) and land measuring 1 bigha and 9 biswas in Khasra No. 17/1/1 (2-01) is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. A B C D E F G H 93 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners disputed the actual taking over of possession and submitted that the possession was taken over by drawing proceedings. However, as observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 taking over the physical possession by drawing the punchna
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.