GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. versus SHAKEEL AHMED & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 395 · 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
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
395
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
v.
SHAKEEL AHMED & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 739 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 – There was
ownership dispute with regard to the land in question – High Court
without going into that controversy, and relying upon the Supreme
Court decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation, allowed
writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 and declared that the
acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) of
the Act, 2013 – Held: The High Court ought to have first decided
the ownership dispute and thereafter ought to have considered the
locus of respondent no.1 – Be that it may, 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 – 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 04.03.1983, 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. 395
395
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
396
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 739 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.3539 of 2015mk.
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. 3539 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 04.03.1983 and even before the High Court, there was an ownership
dispute insofar as the subject land is concerned between the original
writ petitioner and the original respondent No. 5. However, despite the
above and without going into the controversy of the physical possession,
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 land acquisition proceedings initiated under the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
397
Act, 1894 of the subject land is deemed to have lapsed under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such the High
Court ought to have first decided the ownership dispute and thereafter
ought to have considered the locus of the original writ petitioner. Be that
it may, 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.