DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus KRISHAN LAL ARORA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 598 · Decided: 02-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 598
598
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
KRISHAN LAL ARORA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7960 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 02, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) –
Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed
to have lapsed in certain cases – Writ petition by the landowners
claiming that acquisition with respect to the land deemed to be lapsed
u/s.24(2) – Allowed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Though
the possession of the land in question was already taken over by
the Land Acquisition Collector / L& B Department, the acquisition
was ordered to be lapsed by the High Court solely on the ground
that the compensation was not paid to the landowner, and as such s
24(2) was attracted – The view taken by the High Court was contrary
to the Constitution Bench decision of the Court in Indore
Development Authority’s case – Thus, the order passed by the High
Court is quashed and set aside.
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] (3) SCR 1 – followed.
Case Law Reference
[2020] (3) SCR 1
followed
Para 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7960
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No.10820 of 2016.
Mishra Saurabh, Adv. for the Appellant.
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
599
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. 10820 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition preferred by the original landowner – original writ
petitioner - respondent herein, and has held and declared that the
acquisition with respect to the land in question has 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. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it is seen that though the possession of the land in question was
already taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector / L& B Department,
Government of NCT of Delhi on 02.09.2006, the acquisition is ordered
to be lapsed solely on the ground that the compensation has not been
paid to the landowner. According to the High Court, as the compensation
has not been paid to the original writ petitioner – original landowner,
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 shall be attracted and therefore the
acquisition is deemed to have been lapsed. The view taken by the High
Court is just contrary to theConstitution Bench decision of this Court in
the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and
Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 and in paragraph 366, it is observed and held
by this Court as under:-
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the
award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of
the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has
to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window
period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim
order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided
under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it
has not been repealed.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. KRISHAN LAL
ARORA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”.
The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of
authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the
said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession
has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no
lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has
not been taken then there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2)
of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.