LexDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SURENDER SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 345 [2023] 3 S.C.R. 345 345 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SURENDER SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1548 of 2023) April 11, 2023 [ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, 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 – Acquisition proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Writ petitions u/s. 24(2) claiming that acquisition under the 1894 Act had lapsed as neither the possession was taken nor the compensation therefor has been paid – High Courts relying on the Pune Municipal Corporation’s case held that the acquisition has lapsed as the compensation was not paid to the land owners – On appeal, held: The Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority’s case overruling the Pune Municipal Corporation’s case held that satisfaction of either of the conditions namely taking possession of the acquired land or payment of compensation to the landowners would be sufficient to save the acquisition from being lapsed in terms of s. 24(2) – On facts, the land was handed over to the Delhi Development Authority, as such one of the conditions was satisfied – In view thereof, there is no deemed lapse and the acquisition is sustained – Order of the High Court not sustainable and is set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors, (2020) 8 SCC 129 – followed. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and Another (2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232; Pune Municipal Corporation & Another Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783; Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India (2019) 10 SCC 229 – referred to. A B C D E F G H 346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. Case Law Reference [2017] 4 SCR 232 referred Paras 3, 12, 14 [2014] 1 SCR 783 referred Paras 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15 (2019) 10 SCC 229 referred Para 14 (2020) 8 SCC 129 followed Para 19 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1548 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2018 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 9603 of 2015. With Civil Appeal Nos.1572, 1549 and 1547 of 2023. Mishra Saurabh, Adv. for the Appellant. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJESH BINDAL, J. 1. This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals as common questions of law and fact are involved. The facts of the cases have been noticed separately. FACTS: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1548 OF 2023 (DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SURENDER SINGH & ORS) 2. As pleaded, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was issued on 21.03.2003 seeking to acquire land for Rohini Residential Scheme at Delhi. On 19.3.2004, Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award under Section 11 of the Act assessing compensation for the acquired land on 12.7.2005. The compensation amount of 80,40,76,004/- for the acquisition of the land was deposited by the State with the Land Acquisition Collector. 3. A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land A B C D E F G H 347 Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “ 2013 Act”) claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsed since neither possession has been taken nor the compensation therefor has been paid. The definite stand of the State before the High Court was that the possession of the land was taken on 31.08.2005 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority for planned development of Delhi. The title of the writ petitioners was in dispute. Hence, the compensation could not be paid to them. It was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector. The High Court after relying upon the judgment of this Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Manav Dharma Trust and another’s (2017) 6 SCC 751 held that petitioner therein had locus to file the writ petition though not being the recorded owner. It further relied upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and held that the acquisition has lapsed as the compensation had not been paid to the land owners. Though, the issue of title of the land was left open. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1572 OF 2023 (DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. RAM SINGH & ORS.) 4. From the facts as are available on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.