LexGOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI versus SIDDHARTH KAPOOR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SIDDHARTH KAPOOR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1596 of 2023) MARCH 13, 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) – High Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. and declared the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question deemed to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act – It is the specific case of the appellant-State that the possession of the land was taken – Held: The case relied on by High Court has been overruled by the subsequent Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. – Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court to the instant case, there is no deemed lapse u/s. 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Appeal allowed. Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed. Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2020] 3 SCR followed Para 2.1, 3 [2014] 1 SCR 783 referred to Para 2 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1596 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2016 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2512 of 2015. [2023] 2 S.C.R. 224 224 A B C D E F G H 225 Atul Kumar, Avs Kadyan, Rajiv Ranjan, Amitabh Ranjan, Rahul Pandey, Mrs. Archana Kumari, Mrs. Sweety Singh, Mrs. Rachita Kadyan, Advs. for the Appellants. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G., N.S. Vasisht, Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Varun Kapur, Ms. Smita Maan, Ashok Mathur, Sumit Bansal, Manish Paliwal, Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Ranjit Singh Daler, D.V. Khatri, Mansoor Ali, T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ishaan Sharma, Manish Vasisht, Ashutosh Kaushik, Nitin Mishra, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Vikas Gupta, Ms. Vuzmal Nehru, Ankit Gupta, Satya Parkash Gautam, Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, Jaideep Malik, Nitesh Dhankar, Sujeet Kumar, Mahesh Chaurasia, Sunil Kumar Tomar, Ms. Soni, Ms. Reena Patel, Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Varun Agarwal, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Mrs. Rukhmini Bobde, Prashant Rawat, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Malvika Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Tanwangi Shukla, Ravi Bharuka, Ankit Agarwal, Ms. Shalini Chandra, Praveen Swarup, K.P. Singh, Chandra Pratap Singh, Hari Sahteshwar, Devesh Maurya, Ms. Pratishtha Majumdar, Nishit Agrawal, Ishan Sharma, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Dharam Raj Ohlan, Md. Zeeshan Anjum, Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Surjeet Singh, Akash, Vishwa Pal Singh, 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. 2512 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition 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, it appears that the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with respect to the land in question was made as far as back on 12.07.2005. According to the appellant and so stated in the counter before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant that the possession of the GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SIDDHARTH KAPOOR A B C D E F G H 226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R. land in question was taken on 31.08.2005. However, despite the above and relying upon the earlier 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 writ petition and 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. 2.1 The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been heavily relied upon by the Hi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.