GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR versus DAYANAND & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 208 · Decided: 13-03-2023 · 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
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
 v.
 DAYANAND & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 481 of 2023)
MARCH 13, 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) –
As per Land Acquisition Collector the possession of the major portion
of the land acquired was taken and notice u/s. 12 (2) LA Act was
issued to the original writ petitioner, but he did not come to collect
the compensation, then the same was sent to Revenue Deposit –
High Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
Ors. declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question
is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 observing that
even though possession of the major portion was taken, there was
no categorical statement that payment of compensation was made
with law applicable – Held: The case relied on by High Court has
been overruled by the subsequent Constitution Bench decision in
Indore Development authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. – Applying the
law laid down by the Supreme Court and considering the facts of
the case, the impugned judgment and the order passed by the High
Court unsustainable – Accordingly, set aside – There shall be no
deemed lapse of the acquisition with respect to the land in question
u/s. 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
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 2.1
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 208
208
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
209
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 481 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 1754 of 2015.
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
Ms. Smita Maan, Nitin Mishra, 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. 1754 of 2015, by which, the High Court has allowed the said
writ petition 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
“Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. have preferred
the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court and from the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition
Collector (LAC) before the High Court which is reproduced in paragraph
3 of the impugned judgment by the High Court, it was the specific case
on behalf of the LAC that out of total land comprised in Khasra No. 115
(1-0) possession of 19 biswa was taken but possession of remaining 01
biswa could not be taken due to built up. It was also the case on behalf
of the LAC that after the award was declared the original writ petitioner
was issued a notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (LA Act) for collecting the compensation amount vide registered
post No. 4065 dated 27.02.2009 and when he did not come to collect the
compensation, it was sent to Revenue Deposit. Thus, as per the LAC
the possession of the major portion of the land acquired was taken by
drawing possession proceedings dated 13.04.2009, despite the above
and relying upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the
writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the
land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI  v.  DAYANAND
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Act, 2013 by observing that “even though respondent No.2/LAC claims
that possession was taken in respect of the major portion of the land i.e.,
19 biswa, there is no categorical statement that payment of compensation
was made in accordance with law declared to be applicable i.e., in the
case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra).”
2.1 The decision of this Cou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.