DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus NEM CHAND SHARMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 725 · 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
725
725
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
NEM CHAND SHARMA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 395 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) –
Lapse of Acquisition proceedings – Writ petition by the respondent-
original writ petitioners seeking declaration that acquisition
proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in
view of s.24(2) – High Court allowed the petition solely on the
ground that it is not clear as to what compensation was paid and if
so, who raised the dispute – On appeal, held: For attracting the
provisions of s. 24(2), twin conditions of not taking over of possession
and not tendering/paying the compensation are to be satisfied and
if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be any deemed
lapse of acquisition – On facts, the possession of the land was taken
andhanded over to the beneficiary department initially in 1990 and
thereafter, remaining 1 bigha was taken and handed over to the
beneficiary department in the year 2007 – Thus, the order passed
by the High Court is not sustainable and is quashed and set aside –
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
SCR 783 – referred to.
Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
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.395 of
2023.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 725
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
726
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.3446 of 2015.
Ms. Malvika Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Ms. Iti Sharma, Rahul Bhatia, 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. 3446 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioners – respondents
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 appears that though the High Court has observed
and believed the case on behalf of the appellant and the
Government of NCT of Delhi that the possession of the
land in question was taken over, still, the High Court has
allowed the 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 Act, 2013 solely
on the ground that it is not clear as to what compensation
was paid and if so, who raised the dispute and whether the
provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894 were
satisfied in accordance with the prevailing procedure. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
727
SCC 183. However, it is required to be noted that the
decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been subsequently
overruled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
2.2
Apart from the above, even in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra), the Constitution Bench
of this Court has observed and held that for attracting the
provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions
of not taking over of possession and not tendering/paying
the compensation are to be satisfied and if one of the
conditions is not satisfied, there shall no

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