DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SHAKUNTLA DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 20-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
787
787
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
SHAKUNTLA DEVI AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 342 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) –
Land acquisition when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by the
private respondent-writ petitioner seeking declaration that
acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have
lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court allowed the writ petition on
the ground that compensation has not been paid or tendered –
Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Possession was taken
over by the Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to the
beneficiary by drawing panchnama – Applying the law laid by this
Court in Indore Development Authority’s case, the order of the High
Court is quashed and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.342 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.5053 of 2016.
Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
Writ Petition(C) No. 5053 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 787
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
788
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – original
writ petitioner 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. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act,
1894 was issued on 27.06.1996. The Award was also passed vide Award
dated 22.06.1999. According to the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC)
and as per the counter affidavit filed by the LAC before the High Court,
it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the original
respondents that the actual vacant peaceful possession of the subject
land falling in Khasra No. 759(4-16) was taken on 31.12.2013 in which
the original writ petitioner is having 1/4th joint share, i.e., admeasuring 1
bigha on the spot and handed over to the requisition agency by preparing
proper possession proceedings on the spot. Despite the above and
without further commenting upon the taking over of the possession,
thereafter, 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 on the ground that the compensation has not been paid/
tendered to the original writ petitioner. However, as observed hereinabove,
the High Court has not disputed and/or taken into consideration the taking
over of the possession by the LAC and handing over to the beneficiary
by drawing the panchnama on the spot on 31.12.2013.
3. The view taken by the High Court is unsustainable in view of
the decision of the Constitution bench of 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 within the
window period of five years excluding the period covered by an
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
789
interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as
provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894
Act as if it has not been repealed.
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation ha

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