DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAJESH DUA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 907 · 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
907
907
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
RAJESH DUA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 363 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) –
High Court relied upon its decision in Smt. Harbans Kaur v. Govt. of
NCT of Delhi and Ors., in which it had relied on the Supreme Court
decision in case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & Ors. – It held that depositing of the amount of
compensation with the Reference Court cannot be regarded as
compensation having been paid to the landowners and declared
that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed as actual physical possession of the subject land was
not taken over of the land acquiring agency – Held: The decision
in case of  Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & Ors. has been overruled by the subsequent
Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development authority v.
Manoharlal and Ors. – Applying the law laid by the Supreme Court
in the instant case, the compensation with respect to the land in
question was deposited in the Reference Court in the year 1967
and that between 1967 and 2017, there is nothing on record to
show grievance of original landowners regarding non-payment of
compensation and the possession of the land was taken in the year
1967– Therefore, impugned judgment of the High Court
unsustainable – 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.
Smt. Harbans Kaur vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
[W.P.(C) 5358 of 2014, decided on 02.02.2015] –
referred to.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 907
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
908
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 4, 4.1, 5
(2014) 3 SCC 183
referred to
Para 2, 4.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.363 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.6478 of 2017.
Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
Pandey, Avs Kadyan, Rajiv Ranjan, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Sujeeta
Srivastava, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal,
Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Smita Maan,
Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Shekhar Yadav, Ms.
Iti Sharma, Rahul Bhatia, Rachita Kadyan, N. S. Vashist, Gagan Gupta,
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula, 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 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ
Petition(C) No. 6478 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 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 (DDA) has preferred
the present appeal.
2. In the present case, the land in question was acquired in the
year 1964 and the award was declared in the year 1967. According to
the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and so stated in the counter affidavit
filed before the High Court, the possession of the land in question was
taken over in the year 1967 by drawing the panchnama. The
compensation with respect to the land in question was duly deposited
with the Reference Court in the year 1967 itself. That thereafter the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein – original writ petitioners filed the writ
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
909
petition before the High Court in the year 2017 and prayed to declare
that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the compensation
was not actually tendered/paid to the landowners. Relying upon its earlier
decision in the case of Smt. Harbans Kaur Vs. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi and Ors. [W.P.(C) 5358 of 2014, decided on 02.02.2015], in which
after relying upon 

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