DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus CHANDERMAL & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 15-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 752
752
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
CHANDERMAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9115 of 2022)
DECEMBER 15, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
Land Acquisition – Specific case of Land acquisition Collector
(LAC) before High Court that possession of land in question was
taken over by the LAC and was handed over to DDA – High Court
also believed the taking over of the possession by the LAC, but
thereafter on the ground that the compensation was not tendered to
the original writ petitioners, High Court declared that the acquisition
is deemed to have lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Appeal
by LAC – Held: Before the High Court, a counter affidavit was
filed by LAC as well as DDA in which it was specifically mentioned
that the land in question was handed over to DDA on 26.05.1998
and therefore, the acquisition is complete and the lands vest in the
Government and free from any encumbrances – Nothing is on record
that at any point of time, the original writ petitioners made any
grievance that the possession taken over on 26.05.1998 was not
lawful – Even High Court in impugned judgment believed the stand
taken by the LAC that the possession of the subject land was taken
over – Under the circumstances, it is not permissible on the part of
the original writ petitioners to now contend that the possession taken
over on 26.05.1998 was not lawful – The view taken by the High
Court that the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed under s.24(2)
of the Act, 2013 on the ground that though the possession of the
subject lands was taken over but the compensation in respect of the
subject lands was not tendered is contrary to the Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v.
Manoharlal and Ors. – Order of High Court is set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Before the High Court, a counter affidavit was
filed by LAC as well as DDA and in which it was specifically
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
753
mentioned that the land in question was handed over to DDA on
26.05.1998 and therefore, the acquisition is complete and the
lands vest in the Government and free from any encumbrances.
Nothing is on record that any rejoinder affidavit was filed on behalf
of the original writ petitioners to the counter affidavit filed by the
LAC or DDA. Nothing is on record that at any point of time, the
original writ petitioners – predecessors made any grievance that
the possession taken over on 26.05.1998 was not lawful. Even
the High Court in the impugned judgment and order has believed
the stand taken by the LAC that the possession of the subject
land has been taken over. Under the circumstances, it is too late
and/or not permissible on the part of the original writ petitioners
to now contend that the possession taken over on 26.05.1998
was not lawful. [Para 5][755-F-H; 756-A]
2. In the present case, a notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in 1964 and the award
was declared on 10.12.1997 and the possession was handed over
to DDA on 26.05.1998. So far as the submission on behalf of the
original writ petitioners that “in the possession certificate dated
26.05.1998, there was no mention of taking over of possession
of the subject lands by the Land Acquisition Collector from the
original writ petitioners – predecessors” is concerned, mere non-
mention of taking over of possession cannot be a ground not to
believe the possession certificate in which it is specifically
mentioned that the possession of the land in question is handed
over to the DDA. What is relevant is handing over of the
possession to the DDA. [Para 5.1][756-B-D]
3. The view taken by the High Court that the acquisition is
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on
the ground that though the possession of the subject lands has
been taken over but the compensation in respect of the subject
lands has not been tendered is just contrary to the Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [Para 5.2][756-E-F]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. CHANDERMAL &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
754
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
E.LA. Aboobacker and Ors. v. State of Ker

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