GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI versus KRISHNA SAINI & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 615 · 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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
615
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 615
615
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
v.
KRISHNA SAINI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8933 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) –
Before the High Court, it was specific case on behalf of the
appellants-original respondents that the possession of the subject
land was taken on 05.09.2002 – The same was disputed by the
original writ petitioners – However, thereafter, solely on the ground
that the compensation was not tendered and relying upon the decision
in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation, High Court allowed the
writ petition and declared that the land acquisition proceedings
under the Act, 1894 lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) – Hence instant
appeal – Held: In view of Indore Development Authority case and as
the judgment in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation was
specifically overruled by this Court, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is unsustainable – The same is
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 4
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8933
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 10135 of 2015.
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
616
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
Sanjay Kumar Visen, Sanjeev Prakash Upadhyay, Sandeep Joshi,
Ms. Ritu Rastogi, Ms. Himani Bhatnagar, Amit Gupta, Aman, Ravi
Bharuka, Ankit Agarwal, 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. 10135 of 2015 by which the High Court has declared
that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) in respect of the subject
land 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 has preferred the present appeal.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court. Before the High Court, it was the specific case on
behalf of the appellants - original respondents that the possession of the
subject land was taken on 05.09.2002. The same was disputed by the
original writ petitioners. However, thereafter, solely on the ground that
the compensation has not been tendered and 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 under the Act, 1894 have lapsed by
virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
3. 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 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
617
followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar
Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State
of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannot be said to be laying down
good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are
also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
[(2018) 3 SCC 412], the aspect with respect to the proviso to
Section 24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor” or as
“and” was not placed for co

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