GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI versus SUBHASH JAIN AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 630 · 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
630
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 630
630
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
v.
SUBHASH JAIN AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8937 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) –
High Court declared that the acquisition of lands in question deemed
to have lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Held: High Court
failed to notice and consider the specific case on behalf of the
State that at the relevant time, the possession could not be taken
over due to the pending proceedings at the instance of the
landowners challenging the acquisition proceedings, which ended
upto this Court – Original landowners failed in challenge to the
acquisition proceedings upto this Court – Under the circumstances,
when due to pendency of the land acquisition proceedings, the
possession could not be taken over, thereafter, it will not be open
for the landowners to contend that as the possession was not taken
over, the land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed
under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – In view of Indore Development
Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors., the impugned judgment passed by
the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings with
respect to the land in question has lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act,
2013 is unsustainable – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The original landowners failed in challenging the
acquisition proceedings upto this Court. Under the circumstances,
when due to pendency of the land acquisition proceedings, the
possession could not be taken over, thereafter, it will not be open
for the landowners to contend that as the possession was not
taken over, the land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have
lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the
land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question
has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
631
and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is
accordingly quashed and set aside. [Paras 2.1, 3][632-B-C; 634-
D]
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 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 2.2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8937
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2709 of 2015.
Atul Kumar, Rahul Pandey, Amitabh Ranjan, Rajiv Ranjan, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Akansh 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. 2709 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings
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 passedby the High
Court, it appears that while declaring that the acquisition proceedings
under the Act, 1894 is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SUBHASH JAIN AND
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
632
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
Act, 2013, the High Court has heavily relied 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.
2.1 However, the High Court has failed to notice and consider the
specific case on behalf of the appellants that at the relevant time, the
possession could not be taken over due to the pending proceedings at
the instance of the landowners challenging the acquisition proceedings,
which ended upto this Court. The original landowners failed in challenging
the acquisition proceedings upto this 

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