GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR versus MANJEET SINGH ANAND & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 771 · Decided: 20-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
771
771
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
v.
MANJEET SINGH ANAND & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 360 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) –
Land acquisition – Subject land acquired in the year 1964, and in
the year 1967 the physical possession of the land was taken by
drawing panchnama as also compensation was deposited –
Thereafter, writ petition by the respondent no. 1 claiming that the
acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act with respect
to the subject land deemed to have lapsed u/s. 24(2) – Allowed by
the High Court – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable –
Respondent no. 1-original writ petitioner not the recorded owner
and he filed the writ petition on the basis of some documents, General
Power of Attorney, receipts – Subsequent purchaser has no locus
to challenge the acquisition – Impugned judgment contrary to law
laid down by this Court in the Indore Development Authority’s case
– Thus, the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition
preferred at the instance of respondent No. 1-original writ petitioner
and is quashed and set aside.
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors,
(2020) 8 SCC 129 - followed.
Smt. Harbans Kaur Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
W.P.(C) 5358 of 2014, decided on 02.02.2015; Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
(1) SCR 783; Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India
and Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229; Delhi Development
Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., Civil
Appeal No. 3073 of 2022, Delhi Administration Thr.
Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs.
Pawan Kumar & Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022-
referred to.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 771
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2014] (1) SCR 783
referred to
Para 2.1, 2.2
(2020) 8 SCC 129
followed
Para 3
(2019) 10 SCC 229
referred to
Para 2.3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.360 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.7004 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 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ
Petition(C) No. 7004 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein 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. In the present case, the land in question was acquired in the
year 1964 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 was issued on 13.02.1964. Award was made on 12.05.1967.
That according to the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), the physical
possession of the land in question was taken on 07.06.1967 and the
compensation was duly deposited with the Reference Court on
13.11.1967. That thereafter on the Act, 2013, coming into force, the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
773
respondent No. 1 – original writ petitioner on the basis of some documents
– General Power of Attorney, receipts etc. filed the writ petition before
the High Court and prayed for lapse of the acquisition under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013. Though a specific plea was raised before the
High Court that the respondent No. 1 – original writ petitioner has no
locus to challenge the acquisition and the recorded owner is somebody
else, relying upon the decision of the High Court in the case of Smt.
Harbans Kaur Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.