LexGOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. versus MOHD. ZUBAIR AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 625 [2022] 16 S.C.R. 625 625 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. MOHD. ZUBAIR AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 8930 of 2022) DECEMBER 02, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) – Subsequent purchaser – Entitlement of, to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Held: In view of the decision in Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the Act, 2013. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) – Land Acquisition – Possession taken on 16.07.2007 – It was specific case of appellant that the possession of land in question was taken over by preparing a possession proceeding on the spot – High Court declared that the land acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed solely on the ground that the compensation was not tendered to the original writ petitioner – Held: Not sustainable in view of the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. – In the said decision, it was observed that for lapsing of the acquisition under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, of not taking over the possession and not paying/tendering the compensation, are required to be satisfied and that if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – In view of the fact that the possession was taken, acquisition proceedings is not deemed to be lapsed. 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; Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. (2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232 – relied on. A B C D E F G H 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R. Case Law Reference [2017] 4 SCR 232 relied on Para 2.1 [2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 2.2 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8930 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2018 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2674 of 2017. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants. Ashwani Kumar, Ishaan Sharma, Anshay Dhatwalia, 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. 2674 of 2017 by which the High Court has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regard to the subject land 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 a specific objection was raised on behalf of the appellants – original respondents that the original writ petitioner being subsequent purchaser is not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Before the High Court, it was also specifically pointed out and so stated in the counter that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 16.07.2007. However, thereafter, overruling the objection on behalf of the appellants on the maintainability of the writ petition by the subsequent purchaser – original writ petitioner and ignoring the stand taken on behalf of the appellants that the possession was taken over on 16.07.2007, the High Court has declared the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation has not been tendered to the original writ petitioner. A B C D E F G H 627 2.1 On the maintainability of the writ petition, challenge to the land acquisition proceedings by the subsequent purchaser, in the recent decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 after considering the catena of decisions on the point and even after taking into consideration the decision of this Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.