GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI versus RATIRAM & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 791 · Decided: 20-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
791
791
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
v.
RATIRAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 379 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, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by
the private respondent-writ petitioner seeking declaration that
acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have
lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court relying upon the decision in
Pune Municipal Corporation case held the acquisition is deemed
to have lapsed on the ground that compensation with respect to the
land was not tendered – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable –
Possession of the land was taken over and handed over to the
beneficiary department – Impugned Judgment contrary to law laid
down by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision in the Indore
Development Authority’s case – Order passed by the High Court is
quashed and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors,
(2020) 8 SCC 129 – followed.
Case Law Reference
(2020) 8 SCC 129
followed
Para 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.379 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.8685 of 2015.
Chandra Prakash, Vivek Singh, Ms. C. P. Rajwar, Ms. Somi
Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 791
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
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 dated
13.02.2017 in Writ Petition (C) No. 8685 of 2015 by which the High
Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the private
respondent herein and has declared that the acquisition with respect to
the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of 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. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court and even from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant
and others before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific
case on behalf of the appellant and other original respondents that the
possession of the land in question was taken on 21.03.2007. In paragraphs
6 and 7 in the counter affidavit, it was stated as under:-
“6. That as per the record, the land in question, i.e., Khasra No.
17(4-12), 18(3-14), 38(1-12), 41(1-16), 42(1-10) admeasuring 13
bighas 04 biswa (petitioner is having 1/12th share) situated at the
revenue estate of village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Delhi, was
notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 23.09.1989
followed by declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act
on 20.06.1990 for Planned Development of Delhi. In pursuance
of said notification, notices under section 9 & 10 as provided under
the Act, were issued to the interested persons, inviting the claims
from all the interested persons and claims were also filed by the
interested persons including the predecessor(s) in interest of the
present petitioners with respect to the above said land in question.
The then Land Acquisition Collector passed Award No. 8/92-93
dated 19.06.1992 after considering the claims of the claimants. It
is pertinent to mention here that the bearing Khasra No. 861/
639(1-15) is not acquired.
7. That the possession of the land in question was taken over and
handed over to the beneficiary department on 21.03.2007.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
793
However, the compensation amount is not paid to the recorded
owner.”
3. However, thereafter, without taking into consideration the factum
of taking the possession of the land in question and handing over the
same to the beneficiary, by the impugned judgment and order, the High
Court has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question
is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 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 and other decisions and solely on the ground that
the compensation with respect to the land in question is not tendered.
4. However, the decision of this 

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