DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus BATTI & ORS

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 631 · Decided: 22-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
631
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
BATTI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1918 of 2023)
MARCH 22, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) –
Respondent was the daughter-in-law of the deceased – The deceased
was alleged owner of the land with respect to which the land
acquisition proceeding took place and the award was announced
by the land acquisition collector – Respondent approached the High
Court contending that the possession of the land have not be taken
and the compensation not being paid hence the acquisition has
lapsed – The High Court found that as a matter of fact, the
possession was taken by the State but relying upon Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. held that
since the compensation was not paid, therefore the acquisition in
question has lapsed – On appeal, held: The judgment in Pune
Municipal Corporation and Another was overruled by the Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority – The
facts admitted on record it is evident that the possession of the land
was taken after the acquisition of land was complete – However,
compensation was not paid – There is nothing on record to suggest
as to what action was taken by the person who claimed interest in
the property to seek compensation, in case land owned by him was
acquired more than two decades back and no compensation paid –
The conditions laid down in the Indore Development Authority were
not satisfied – Therefore, there cannot be lapsing of acquisition of
land.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the
High Court shows that the Writ Petition was allowed relying upon
the judgement of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and
Another’s case. The case set by the writ petitioner was that late
H was the recorded owner of the land as noticed in para 2 of the
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 631
631
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
632
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
judgment. The writ petitioner is his daughter--in--law. Even the
husband of the writ petitioner had expired when the writ petition
was filed. It was claimed that late H was having bhoomidari rights,
however in terms of the stand taken by the appellant, no surviving
membership was placed on record. Definite and undisputed stand
taken by the respondent before the High Court was that the
possession of the land was taken after the award was announced
and the same was handed over to the Forest Department for
development as green belt, agriculture and water body as the
land falls in ‘O’ Zone. [Para 13][637-E-F]
2. Initially, the stand sought to be taken by the writ
petitioner before the High Court was that the physical possession
of the land had not been taken, however, the same was given up.
The only argument pressed was that the compensation be paid
as per the provisions of the 2013 Act. The Writ Petition was
allowed relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal
Corporation and Another’s case. The High Court had also noticed
the fact that there was dispute about title of the property which
as per the stand taken by both the parties was kept open.
Meaning thereby, even the compensation could not have been
paid to the predecessor interest of the respondent/ writ petitioner.
There is nothing on record to suggest as to what action was taken
by the person who claimed interest in the property to seek
compensation, in case land owned by him was acquired more than
two decades back and no compensation paid. The litigation started
only with enactment of Act of 2013. The ingredients of Section
24(2) of 2013 Act as interpreted by this Court in Indore
Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others’s case are not
satisfied in the case in hand. There cannot be lapsing of acquisition
of land. [Paras 14, 15][637-G-H; 638-A-C]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
SCR 783 – referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
633
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 08
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1918
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 12135 of 2015.
With
Civil Appeal No. 1919 of 2023.
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Ashwani Kumar, Ansha

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