DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus JAGAN SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 17-02-2023 · 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
411
   [2023] 2 S.C.R. 411
411
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
JAGAN SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.943 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 17, 2023
[M. R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR & SANJAY KAROL JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –
High Court relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
Ors. reported as declared that the acquisition proceeding initiated
w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – On
appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case has been
overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority
v. Manoharlal and Ors. reported as wherein it is held that once the
possession is taken over there shall not be deemed lapse u/s.24(2)–
In the present case,even as per the finding recorded by the High
Court,the physical possession of the subject land was admittedly
taken– Impugned judgment setaside.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune    Municipal    Corporation    and     Anr.     vs.
Harakchand Misirimal Solankiand Ors. (2014) 3 SCC
183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783–referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referredto
Para2
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 2.1
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.943 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.3164 of 2015.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Manish Vashist, Advs.
for the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
412
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved  and  dissatisfied  with  the  impugned judgment
and order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3164 of 2015 by which the High Court
has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein
– original writ petitioner 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
‘the Act 2013’), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the
present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court and even as per the finding recorded by the High Court in para 3,
the physical possession of the subject land was admittedly taken on
16.07.2007. However, thereafter relying upon the decision of this Court
in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on
the ground that the compensation has not been paid to the original
petitioner, 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.
2.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that 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 has been
specifically over-ruled by the Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court  in  the
case  of   Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and
others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129. In the said decision it is
specifically  observed  and  held  that  once  the  possession  was taken
over there shall not be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act.
In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court
has observed and held as under:-
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki,
(2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in
which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
413
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been
followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar
Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State
of T.N.,  (2015)  3 SCC 353] cannot be said to be laying  down
good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are
also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
[(2018) 3 SCC 412], the aspect with respect to the proviso to
Section 24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor” or as
“and” was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision
too cannot prevail

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