GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. versus SH. MANISH & ANR

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 401 · Decided: 09-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
401
401
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
v.
SH. MANISH & ANR
(Civil Appeal No. 738 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 09, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – High Court,
relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation, allowed writ petition preferred by respondent
No. 1 and declared that acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Act, 1894 with regard to the land in question is deemed to have
lapsed under s.24(2) of Act, 2013 – However, the decision in the
case of Pune Municipal Corporation has been specifically overruled
by the Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority – Held: Applying the law laid down in
the case of Indore Development Authority, the twin conditions namely,
not taking the possession and not paying the compensation have to
be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall
not be any lapse of the acquisition – Once possession of the land in
question was taken on 23.02.2007, acquisition proceedings is not
deemed to have lapsed – Judgment of High Court unsustainable.
Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & Ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 – held
overruled.
Case Law Reference
(2014) 3 SCC 183
held overruled
Para 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 3
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 401
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
402
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.738 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.05.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.2846 of 2015.
Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Shivam Singh,
Rohan Sharma, Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Gopal Singh, Ms. Iti Sharma, Rahul
Bhatia, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Manish
Vashist, Roshan Kumar, Nitin Mishra, Sahil Tagotra, Abhishek Pandey,
Ms. Abhivyakti Banerjee, Ms. Sakshi Garg, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, 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. 2846 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – original
writ petitioner and has declared that the land 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 and even from the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it
appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and
original respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken
on 23.02.2007. However, despite the above, 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, the
High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
403
land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 of the subject
land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
3. However, it is required to be noted that the decision of this
Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra),
which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned
judgment and order has been specifically overruled by the Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In
paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed
and held as under:-
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki,
(2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in
which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been
followed,

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