GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. versus SUDESH VERMA AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 620 · 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
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
620
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 620
620
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
v.
SUDESH VERMA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8929 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) –
High Court declared that the acquisition of lands in question deemed
to have lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Held: High Court
failed to notice and consider the specific case on behalf of the
appellants that at the relevant time, the possession could not be
taken over due to the pending proceedings at the instance of the
landowners challenging the acquisition proceedings, which ended
upto this Court – The original landowners failed in challenge to
the acquisition proceedings upto this Court – Under the
circumstances, when due to pendency of the land acquisition
proceedings, the possession could not be taken over, thereafter, it
will not be open for the landowners to contend that as the possession
was not taken over, the land acquisition proceedings be deemed to
have lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – In view of Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors., the impugned judgment
passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition
proceedings with respect to the land in question has lapsed under
s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and the same deserves to
be quashed and set aside.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
1 SCR 783 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 2.2
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
621
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8929
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 5258 of 2015.
Atul Kumar, Ms. Archana Kumari, Ms. Sweety Singh, Rahul
Pandey, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, 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. 5258 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act,
1894”) with regard to the landin question isdeemed 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 passedby the High
Court, it appears that while declaring that the acquisition proceedings
under the Act, 1894 is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013, the High Court has heavily relied 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.
2.1 However, the High Court has failed to notice and consider the
specific case on behalf of the appellants that at the relevant time, the
possession could not be taken over due to the pending proceedings at
the instance of the landowners challenging the acquisition proceedings,
which ended upto this Court. The original landowners failed in challenge
to the acquisition proceedings upto this Court. Under the circumstances,
when due to pendency of the land acquisition proceedings, the possession
could not be taken over, thereafter, it will not be open for the landowners
to contend that as the possession was not taken over, the land acquisition
proceedings be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act,
2013.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. SUDESH
VERMA AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
622
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
2.2 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 Ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.