DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAJ SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 840 · Decided: 09-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
840
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 840
840
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
RAJ SINGH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8993 of 2022)
DECEMBER 09, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
Land Acquisition – Possession taken on 19.01.2006 – High Court
declared that the land acquisition with respect to the land in question
is deemed to have lapsed on the ground that the amount of
compensation was not paid to the land owners – Held: The view
taken by the High Court is not sustainable in view of the
Constitutional Bench decision of Supreme Court in Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. wherein it was held
that in case possession was taken but compensation not paid then
there is no lapse – High Court order set aside.
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
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8993
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 10800 of 2016.
Ms. Malvika Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, 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 dated 27.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.10800 of 2016 by which the High Court
has allowed the said Writ Petition and has declared that the land acquisition
proceedings with respect to the land in question under Land Acquisition
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
841
Act, 1894 is deemed to have lapsed under Sub-section (2) of Section 24
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 it appears that though in the counter affidavit filed before the High
Court filed by the Land Acquisition Collector it was stated that the
possession was taken on 19.01.2006. However, the details of the payment
of compensation are not available with the LAC Branch and therefore it
is not possible to state anything about payment of compensation, the
High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and has declared that the land
acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed
under Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground
that the amount of compensation was not paid to the land owners.
2.1 Now it is required to be noted that before the High Court it
was stated on behalf of the DDA that it released a sum of Rs.10 crores
to the Land and Building Department way back on 28.08.1990 in respect
of the land acquired. Therefore, the High Court has allowed the writ
petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect
to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under sub-section (2) of
Section 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation
was not actually paid to the land owners.
3. The view taken by the High Court is unsustainable in view of
the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC
129. 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.
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
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAJ SINGH & ANR.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
[(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, in th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.