GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. versus KARAMPAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 827 · Decided: 02-12-2022 · 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
827
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
v.
KARAMPAL AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8931 of 2022)
DECEMBER 02, 2022
[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 – It was a specific case of appellant-State that
possession was taken on 17.09.2008 and even the name of
government was mutated in the revenue records – However relying
on decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. and solely on the
ground that the amount of compensation was not paid or tendered
in accordance with law, High Court declared that the land acquisition
with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under
s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Held: Original writ petitioner before the
High Court was the subsequent purchaser – As held in Delhi
Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., that
subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisition
proceedings under the Act, 2013, High Court materially erred in
entertaining the writ petition by subsequent purchaser claiming
lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013 – Even
otherwise, order of High Court is not sustainable in view of the
Constitutional Bench decision of Supreme Court in Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. wherein it was held
that in case possession was taken but compensation not paid then
there is no lapse – High Court order set aside.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd.
& Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 – relied on.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
1 SCR 783 – referred to.
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 827
827
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
828
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 2.2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8931
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2017of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 1202 of 2017.
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
Ms. Malvika Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, 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. 1202 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition preferred by the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser
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 Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. have 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 appellants
and so stated in the counter affidavit before the High Court that the
possession of the land in question was taken over on 17.09.2008 and
even the name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records.
However, thereafter and despite the above, solely relying upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and
Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC
183 and solely on the ground that the compensation was not paid or
tendered in accordance with law, the High Court has declared that the
land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question has
lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
2.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original writ
petitioner before the High Court was the subsequent purchaser and as
observed and held by this Court in the case of Delhi Development
Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., - Civil Appeal No.
3073 of 2022, subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of
acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013. Therefore, the High Court
has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition by the original writ
petitioner – subsequent purchaser claiming lapsing of the acquisition
proceedings under the Act, 2013.
2.2 Even 

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