DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DAYANAND & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 09-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 829
829
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
DAYANAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9005 of 2022)
DECEMBER 09, 2022
[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) –
Writ petition by subsequent purchaser to claim lapsing of the
acquisition proceedings under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 –
Maintainability of – Held: In the case of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. &
Ors., it was held that the subsequent purchaser is not entitled to
claim lapsing of the proceedings under the Act, 2013 – In that view
of the matter, the original writ petitioner-subsequent purchaser had
no locus to file the writ petition to claim lapsing of the acquisition
proceedings under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
Land Acquisition – Possession taken on 26.11.2012 and handed
over to DDA – High Court declared that the land acquisition with
respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed solely on
the ground that the compensation in respect of entire area was not
paid to the original writ petitioner (subsequent purchaser) – Held:
The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal
and Ors. – In the said decision, it is observed and held that for
lapsing of the acquisition under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin
conditions, of not taking over the possession and not paying/
tendering the compensation, are required to be satisfied and that if
one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be deemed
lapse of the acquisition proceedings under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013
– In view of the fact that the possession was taken, acquisition
proceedings is not deemed to be lapsed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: In the case of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., it is
observed and held that the subsequent purchaser is not entitled
to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the Act, 2013. In that
view of the matter, the original writ petitioner – subsequent
purchaser had no locus to file the writ petition to claim lapsing of
the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Even otherwise, on merits also, the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable in view of the
Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.. In the said
decision, it is observed and held that for lapsing of the acquisition
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, of not taking
over the possession and not paying / tendering the compensation,
are required to be satisfied. In the said decision, it is further
observed and held that if one of the conditions is not satisfied,
there shall not be deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. [Paras 3.2, 3.3][832-B-E]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd.
& Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 – relied on.
Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust
and Anr. (2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232; Delhi
Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building
Department & Ors. v. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Civil
Appeal No. 3646 of 2022 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 4 SCR 232
referred to
Para 3
[2020] 3 SCR 1 
followed
Para 3.3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9005
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.03.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.3357/2016.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
831
Nitin Mishra, Adv. for the Appellant.
Amit Kumar, Rajnish Kumar, Ms. Neelam Singh, 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. 3357 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition preferred by the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser
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 laps

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