LexDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAJAN SOOD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 14 S.C.R. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAJAN SOOD & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1927 of 2022) MARCH 29, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.48 – High Court relying on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case allowed the writ petition filed by Respondent No.1 and 2 original writ petitioners and declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act w.r.t the subject lands are deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – On appeal, held: The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case has been overruled by the decision of Constitution bench in Indore Development Authority case – Further, the High Court while passing the impugned judgment observed that the possession of the land in question continued with the original writ petitioners and that the compensation was neither paid nor even tendered – However, it was the specific case on behalf of the authority that the possession of the land in question was already taken over on 23.09.1986 and even the compensation amount of Rs.2.00 crores was deposited with the land and building department – Considering the decision in case of Indore Development Authority it cannot be said that the land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed u/sub-section(2) of s.24 – Also, at the time when the Act, 2013 came into force there was a stay granted by the High Court vide order dated 09.11.2011 in writ petition No.7714/2011 restraining the authority taking any coercive action in respect of the land in question – Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed u/sub- section (2) of s.24 of the 2013 Act, is unsustainable and is set aside. Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed. [2022] 14 S.C.R. 1060 1060 A B C D E F G H 1061 Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2014] 1 SCR 783 referred to Para 2 [2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 3.4 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1927 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2016 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 1034 of 2015. With Civil Appeal No. 1928 of 2022 Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Adv., Anshay Dhatwalia, Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Ms. Asees Jasmine Kaur, Love Kumar Gupta, Angad Sandhu, Ms. Astha Saxena, Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Ms. Astha Tyagi, Siddharth Raj Agarwal, Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 1034/2015, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the private respondents herein – original writ petitioners and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1894) in respect of the subject lands are 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), Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Government of NCT of Delhi have preferred the present appeals. 2. Private respondent No.1 and 2 herein - original writ petitioners filed the writ petition before the High Court for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 in respect of the DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAJAN SOOD & ORS. A B C D E F G H 1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 14 S.C.R. subject lands are deemed to have lapsed under sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Act, 2013. It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners before the High Court that as the possession of the land in question is with them and no compensation has been paid, the land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed. Heavy reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors, (2014) 3 SCC 183. 2.1 The petition was opposed by the appellants here
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.