DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DEWAN CHAND PRUTHI & ORS

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 765 · Decided: 20-01-2023 · 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
765
765
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
DEWAN CHAND PRUTHI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 397 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 – On facts,
possession not taken due to stay, however, compensation was sent
in RD - Writ petition seeking declaration that acquisition
proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in
view of s.24(2) – Allowed by the High Court relying on the Pune
Municipal Corporation’s case – 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 that once having obtained the stay against the
dispossession and due to which the acquiring body/beneficiary
could not have taken the possession, thereafter, it is not open for
the landowner to contend that as the possession is not taken, he is
entitled to the benefit of s. 24(2) – 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 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 - followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
SCR 783 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 2.1
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.397 of
2023.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 765
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.609 of 2016.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ishaan Sharma, Ashutosh Kaushik, Manish
Vashist, Advs. for the Appellant.
Nchiketa Joshi, S K Tyagi, Navanjay Mahapatra, Santosh Kumar,
Ms. Shruti Agarwal, Ms. Janhvi Prakash, Kartik Dey, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula,
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. 609 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein 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 has preferred the present
appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court.
2.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it is evident that before the High Court, it was the specific case
on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and so stated in the
counter affidavit in paragraph 8 that since the Hon’ble High Court had
granted stay against dispossession, therefore, the possession of the land
in question was not taken, however, the compensation with respect to
the land in question was sent in RD. Despite the above, relying upon the
earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.,
(2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and
has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
767
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. However,
in the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, this Court
has subsequently overruled the earlier decision of this Court in the case
of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been
relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and
order.
2.2  In the case of Indore Development Authority (supra),
the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held that if the
possession could not be taken by the acquiring body / beneficiary due to
the stay of the Court, the period of stay is to be excluded. Even otherwise,
we are of the opinion that once having obtai

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