DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus BHAGI SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 20-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
783
783
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
BHAGI SINGH AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 366 of 2023)
JANUARY 20, 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) –
Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by
the writ petitioner seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings
pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2)
– High Court held the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed on the
ground that no physical possession was taken in respect of the suit
land – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Impugned
Judgment contrary to law laid down by this Court in the Constitution
Bench decision in the Indore Development Authority’s case –
Possession of the land was taken over by DDA through LAC/ L&B
Department by drawing panchnama and preparing the possession
report which is permissible – Thus, order passed by the High Court
is quashed and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors,
(2020) 8 SCC 129 – followed.
Case Law Reference
(2020) 8 SCC 129                         followed
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.366 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.8291 of 2015.
Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
Pandey, Avs Kadyan, Rajiv Ranjan, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Sujeeta
Srivastava, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal,
Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Smita Maan,
Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Shekhar Yadav, Ms.
Iti Sharma, Rahul Bhatia, Rachita Kadyan, N. S. Vashist, Gagan Gupta,
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 783
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
784
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
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. 8291 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act,
1894”) with regard to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed
under 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
(DDA) has preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears and so stated in the affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition
Collector (LAC)before the High Court that the possession of the land in
question – Khasra No. 28 was taken over by the DDA through LAC/
L&B Department on 21.03.2007. Despite the above, the High Court
has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed on the ground that no physical possession was
taken in respect of the suit land.
4. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
just contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the Constitution Bench
decision in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraph 366, the
Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:-
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case
the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement
of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation
has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period covered by an
interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as
provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894
Act as if it has not been repealed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
785
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”.
The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of
authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the
said Act, the

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