DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V versus SHYAMO & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 887 · 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
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
887
887
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
SHYAMO & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 365 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 relying on its decision in Gyanender Singh & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 1393/2014], allowed the writ
petition filed by the original writ petitioner-respondent no.1 herein
and declared that the acquisition w.r.t the land in question is deemed
to have lapsed u/s.24(2) on the ground that the compensation was
not tendered to the original writ petitioner– On appeal, held: While
deciding the Gyanender Singh case, the High Court had relied upon
the earlier decision of Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation
case which has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of Supreme
Court in Indore Development Authority case –Applying the law laid
down in Indore Development Authority case and more particularly
when the possession of the land in question was taken over by
drawing the panchnama and preparing the possession proceedings
and the same was handed over to the DDA and furthermore, as the
original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner, there was no
question of tendering any compensation to him at the relevant time–
Also, the High Court entertained the writ petition without deciding
the ownership and title of the original writ petitioner – Impugned
judgmentis unsustainable, set aside.
Land Acquisition – Writ petition challenging acquisition/lapse
of acquisition proceedings – Proving ownership and title– Held:
For entertaining any writ petition, the ownership and title has to be
first established and proved and only thereafter a person claiming
ownership and title can be permitted to file the writ petition
challenging the acquisition/lapse of acquisition proceedings.
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 887
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
1 SCR 783  – referred to.
Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Decision dtd.23.09.2014 of High Court of Delhi in
W.P. (C) No. 1393/2014 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1  SCR 783                 referred to
Para 2.1
[2020] 3 SCR 1                      followed
Para 2.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 365 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.12174 of 2015.
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 dated 20.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12174 of 2015 by which the High Court
has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein
– original writ petitioner 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
‘the Act 2013’), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the
present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the LAC
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
889
before the High Court and so stated in the counter affidavit filed by the
LAC that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 was issued on 23.09.1989 for planned development of Delhi for
the acquisition of the lands falling in Village Ghonda Gujaran Khadar.
That award was declared on 19.06.1992 and the actual vacant physical
possession of the subject land was taken on 21.03.2007, out of which
the original petitioner has been claiming 1/12th share on the spot and
handed over to the DDA after p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.