DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus NARVADA DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 09-02-2023 · 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
389
389
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
V.
NARVADA DEVI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 735 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 09, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Respondent no.1 filed writ petition, claiming
relief for declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to
subject lands were deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) of the
Act, 2013 as neither physical possession of the subject lands had
been taken nor compensation had been tendered to respondent no.1–
High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that acquisition
with respect to the land in question was deemed to have lapsed –
Held: The view taken by the High Court is contrary to the
Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in the Indore
Development Authority case – High Court was conscious of the
fact that the actual physical possession was not capable of being
taken due to illegal occupation by the encroachers – Though, High
Court granted declaration that acquisition proceedings with respect
to the subject lands were deemed to have lapsed, the High Court
observed that respondent no.1 would only be entitled to
compensation as per Act, 2013 – Once it is held that respondent
no.1 is not entitled to the relief of declaration of lapsing of the
acquisition proceedings, there is no question of payment of any
compensation to him as per the Act, 2013 – Under the circumstances
also, the impugned judgment of the High Court is unsustainable.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 3
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 389
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
390
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.735 Of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.07.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.3383 of 2016.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Roshan Kumar, Manish
Vashist, Advs. for the Appellant.
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. 3383 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 with respect to the land in question is deemed
to have lapsed by virtue of 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 (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.
2. Before the High Court, the respondent No. 1 – original writ
petitioner claimed the relief for a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings pertaining to land measuring 504 sq. yards out of Khasra
No.49/14 situated in the area of Village Pehladpur Bangar, National
Capital Territory of Delhi are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013 as neither physical possession of the subject land
has been taken nor the compensation has been tendered to the petitioner.
2.1 Before the High Court and so stated in the counter affidavit,
it was the case on behalf of the appellant – DDA that as such the
payment of compensation in respect of the award amounting to Rs.
80,40,76,004/- was released to L & B Department, GNCTD by cheque
dated 09.08.2005. It was also the case on behalf of the DDA that the
land measuring area 457 Bigha 08 Biswa, Village Pehladpur Bangar is
in possession of the DDA but the remaining area is in illegal occupation
in the nature of residential houses, factories, Katha Jat along with
boundary wall and the steps are taken by the DDA to remove them but
on and off the land grabbers encroach upon the DDA land. It was also
the case on behalf of the appellant - DDA that so far as the original writ
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
391
petitioner is concerned, he has encroached on the Government land
claiming himself to be the owner.
2.2 Despite the above and without appreciating the reasons for
not taking the actual vacant possession of the remaining land, though as
per the possession proceedings dated 31.08.2005, physical possession
of the land measuring 457 Bigha was taken over and handed over to the
DDA, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that
the acquisition with respect to the land in question is 

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