GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI versus SUBHASH GUPTA & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 407 · 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
407
407
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
v.
SUBHASH GUPTA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 737 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 – Possession of
the land in question could not be taken because of the operation of
the stay order in a writ petition and the same came to be continued
by Supreme Court till 11.02.2015 – Therefore, there was a stay
operating against the taking over of the possession even on the
day on which the Act, 2013 came into force – High Court however,
relying upon its’ earlier decision in the case of Jagjit Singh and 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 as physical possession of the subject land was not taken
and compensation was not paid – Held: Decisions in the cases of
Pune Municipal Corporation, and Jagjeet Singh are contrary to the
Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority – As per law laid in the case of Indore
Development Authority, the period of stay of taking over the
possession has to be excluded for the purpose of s.24(2) of Act,
2013 – Even otherwise, once having obtained the stay of possession,
thereafter, it will not be open for the landowners to contend that as
the possession (which is not taken due to stay) has not been taken
therefore, there would be lapse under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 –
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 –
Impugned judgment passed by High Court, accordingly,
unsustainable.
Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 407
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
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
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.737 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.2458 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. 2458 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 Govt. of NCT of
Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court and even so stated in the counter affidavit filed before the High
Court, it appears that the possession of the land in question could not be
taken because of the operation of the stay order in Writ Petition (C) No.
14129 of 2005 and the same came to be continued by this Court till
11.02.2015. Therefore, there was a stay operating against the taking
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
409
over of the possession even on the day on which the Act, 2013 came
into force. However, despite the above and relying upon its earlier decision
in the case of Jagjit Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.,
Writ Petition (C) No. 2806 of 2004 and relying upon the decision of
this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.
Harakchand Misi

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