DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus EMINENT MARKETING PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 1015 · Decided: 16-01-2023 · 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
1015
1015
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
EMINENT MARKETING PVT. LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 337 of 2023)
JANUARY 16, 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) –
High Court relying upon the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation
& Anr. v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors. held that the acquisition
proceedings in respect of land in question deemed to have lapsed
u/s. 24(2) of 2013 Act solely on the ground that compensation has
not been paid to the petitioner – On appeal, held: Possession of
land in question was taken on 27.09.2012 – The entire compensation
with respect to land in question was deposited with Treasury –
Applying the law laid by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in Indore Development Authority, the judgment and order of
the High Court is unsustainable – Accordingly, set aside – Appeal
allowed.
Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & 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 3.1, 3.3
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 3.3, 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.337 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No.11476 of 2016.
Nitin Mishra, B.K.Satija, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Shubhendu
Anand, Rajan Kumar Chaurasia, Ishaan Sharma, Sudhakar Kulwant,
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 1015
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1016
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Brajesh Kumar, Prashant Rawat, Tathagat
Sharma, Atul Dong, Ranjan Chorasia, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for
the Appellant.
Gopal Sankaranarayan, Sr. Adv., Brijesh C, Deepayan Mandal,
Prins Kumar, Mridul Bansal,  Naman Varma, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 11476 of 2016 by which the High Court
has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition
with respect 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.
3. We have heard Shri Nitin Mishra, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant and Shri Gopal Sankaranarayan, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent no.1 – original
writ petitioner at length. We have also gone through and considered the
averments in the original writ petition as well as the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court.
3.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court it appears that though it was the specific case on behalf of the
Authority and so stated in the counter that the possession of the land in
question was taken on 27.09.2012 and that the original writ petitioner
was not the recorded owner and the land absolutely vested in the Gaon
Sabha, thereafter the High Court has declared the acquisition with respect
to the land in question as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of
the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation has not been
paid to the petitioner. While passing the impugned judgment and order
the High Court has heavily relied 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1017
3.2 However, it is required to be noted and even as observed and
recorded by the High Court the entire compensation with respect to the
land in question was deposited with the Treasury. It is required to be
noted that even in the writ petition in paragraph 4 it was stated that in
perusal of the award no.09/2008-09, the representatives of the
respondents took the possession of the land of the petitioner on 27.09.2012.
Even the possession proceeding was also annexed with the writ petition.
In light of the aforesaid facts, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court declaring the land acquisition proceedings as deemed
to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the

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