DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus BHIM SAIN GOEL AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 1164 · Decided: 25-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 1164
1164
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
BHIM SAIN GOEL AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3151 of 2022)
APRIL 25, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss. 4, 6, 16 and 18 – Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 –s. 24(2) – Notification
u/s 4 to acquire land of the respondent, followed by declaration u/
s. 6 – Challenge to, by the respondent in a writ petition – High
Court granted the stay and directed the parties to maintain the status
quo with regards to nature, title and possession of the land and
dismissed thewrit petition – In appeal, this Court granted interim
stay – Meanwhile, Act of 2013 passed – Writ petition by respondent
claiming that the land acquisition proceedings under the Act of 1894
stood lapsed as per the s.24(2) of the Act of 2013 – Allowed by the
High Court as the award in the matter was made 5 years prior to
the commencement of the Act of 2013 and the compensation had
not been paid – Appeal before this Court – During the pendency
thereof, the proceedings under the 1956 Act that land in question
needed for public purpose – Held: Respondents cannot take shelter
u/s. 24(2) of the Act of 2013 – Barring 81 days, the appellant-
acquiring authority was prevented for taking possession of the lands
on account of interim stay obtained by the respondents – If not for
the stay, the lands would have been taken and the land would have
stood vested with the Government under the 1894 Act – Furthermore,
Government cannot acquire the the land already vested in it and
the Government cannot be compelled to shell out public funds to
acquire land which already belongs to it – The fact that proceedings
under the 1956 Act reached the stage of declaration cannot give
the respondents a right to claim the fruits of the said proceedings,
when the land already would stand vested under the 1894 Act and
there cannot be vesting twice over – Thus, the judgment of the High
Court set aside and the land stood vested to the Government –
However, the respondents granted an opportunity to file an
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1165
application u/s 18 of the 1894 Act seeking reference and claiming
enhanced compensation – National Highways Act, 1956 –
Subsequent events.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Notification came to be issued under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 21.03.2003. This was followed
up by declaration under Section 6 on 18.03.2004 which was
followed up by Award passed on 22.08.2005. An interim order
was passed undoubtedly which effectively prevented the appellant
from taking possession of the lands in question. Though the writ
petition came to be dismissed on 20.08.2007, the respondents
carried the lis to this Court and it is again not in dispute that the
interim order continued to haunt the appellants as it prevented
the appellants from taking possession of the lands which it could
otherwise have taken. With the enactment of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with effect from
01.01.2014, even when the civil appeal was pending, the
respondents filed a fresh round of litigation in the form of a writ
petition. Therein the claim was that the earlier Award has lapsed
on the basis of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This argument has
found favour with the High Court in the impugned judgment. It is
the case of the appellant that except for 81 days, there was an
interim order prevailing, which effectively prevented the appellant
from taking possession of the lands at the instance of the
respondents. [Para 10][1173-C-F]
1.2 There cannot be any doubt that the respondents cannot
take shelter under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This is for the
simple reason that it is by their conduct in approaching the Courts
and obtaining interim orders that the appellant was prevented
from taking possession of the lands. This is indeed one such case
where the respondents have launched litigation, obtained orders
and it has clearly prevented the appellant from taking possession
and therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court would
have to be set aside. [Para 12][1176-A-C]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BHIM SAIN GOEL AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
1.3 It is true that a notification has been issued under Section
3A of the 1956 Act also. It is equally true

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