DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus BHAGWAT SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 02-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
593
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 593
593
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
BHAGWAT SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7961 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 02, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) –
Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed
to have lapsed in certain cases – Writ petition by the landowners
claiming that acquisition with respect to the land deemed to be lapsed
u/s. 24(2) – Allowed by the High Court – On appeal, held: High
Court relying upon the decision of this Court in Pune Municipal
Corporation’s case ordered lapsing of the land in question u/s. 24
on the ground that the compensation was not paid to the landowners
– Said decision-Pune Municipal Corporation’s case has been overruled
by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Indore
Development Authority’s case – Furthermore, before the High Court,
it was the specific case of the Development Authority-appellant that
the possession of the land in question has already been taken – In
view thereof, the order passed by the High Court is unsustainable
and is set aside.
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, 3, 4
[2020] (3) SCR 1
followed
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7961
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No.10359 of 2015.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
Nitin Mishra, Adv. for the Appellant.
Mohit Kumar Gupta, Mohd. Hashim Miyan, Mann Bidhuri, 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. 10359 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition preferred by the private respondent herein – original
writ petitioner, and has held and declared that the acquisition with respect
to the land in question has 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 has preferred the present appeal.
2. Having gone through the Impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court, it is seen that the High Court has ordered lapsing of
the land in question under Section 24 of the Act, 2013 relying upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and
Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC
183 and on the ground that the compensation has not been paid to the
landowners. However, it is required to be noted that before the High
Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the Delhi Development
Authority that the possession of the land in question has already been
taken. As observed hereinabove on the ground that the compensation
has not been paid to the landowner relying upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra),
the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that
the acquisition with respect to the land in question has lapsed.
3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporationand Anr. (supra) relied upon by the High Court has been
overruled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020)
8 SCC 129 and in paragraph 366, it is ultimately concluded as under:-
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
595
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.
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
poss

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