DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAJENDER SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 7 · Decided: 24-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
7
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 7
7
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
RAJENDER SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.1301 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 24, 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) –
Specific case on behalf of the DDA that possession of the lands in
question were taken over and the compensation with respect to the
said lands was sent in RD due to dispute – High Court relying upon
the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., declared that the acquisition
with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.
24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation
was not paid in the manner known to law to the land owners –
Held: The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & ors. has been specifically overruled by the
Constitution Bench in the case Indore Development Authority v.
Manoharlal and Ors. – As per the law laid down by Supreme Court in
the case of Indore Development Authority for deemed lapse under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, namely, (i) the
possession is not taken and (ii) the compensation is not tendered/
paid are to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied
there shall not be any lapse or deemed lapse under the Act, 2013 –
Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court unsustainable and accordingly, set aside – Appeal allowed.
Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
SCR 783 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 3.1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1301
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.3561 of 2015.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Manish Vashist, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Ms. A. Sahitya Veena, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Viksit Arora, 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. 3561 of 2015, by which, the High Court has allowed the
said 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
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. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court and even the counter affidavit filed
before the High Court by the Delhi Development Authority wherein it
was the specific case on behalf of the respondent therein that the
possession of lands in question was taken over and handed over to the
beneficiary department on 23.09.1981 and the compensation with respect
to the said lands was sent in RD due to dispute.
3. However, thereafter despite the above and relying upon the
earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.,
(2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has declared that the acquisition
with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation
was not paid in the manner known to law to the land owners.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
9
3.1 The view taken by the High Court is just contrary to the law
laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraph 366, the
Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held 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 wi

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