GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANR versus DINESH KUMAR & ANR

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 848 · Decided: 28-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
   [2023] 4 S.C.R. 848
848
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANR.
v.
DINESH KUMAR & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3151 of 2023)
APRIL 28, 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 writ petitioner seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings
pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2)
– High Court held the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed on the
ground that no compensation was paid for the suit land –
Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Possession of the disputed
lands was taken on 31.12.2013 by drawing panchnama – Applying
the law laid by this Court in Indore Development Authority the twin
conditions of not taking possession and not paying compensation
has to be satisfied – Thus, if one of the two ingredients of s. 24(2) is
not met, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition u/s.
24(2) – Thus, the order of the High Court is set aside – Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors,
(2020) 8 SCC 129; [2020] (3) SCR 1  – followed.
Case Law Reference
[2020] (3) SCR 1
 followed
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3151
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.07.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No.4954 of 2016.
Ms. Prachi Bajpai, Adv. for the Appellants.
Jaswant Singh Rawat, Virender Singh Tomar, Ms. Ikshita Parihar,
Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Advs. for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
849
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. 4954 of 2016, 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 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. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) has
submitted that in the present case the possession of the disputed land in
question was taken on 31.12.2013 and therefore, as per the law laid-
down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 there shall
not beany deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act,
2013.
2.1 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
original writ petitioner – respondent No. 1 herein has submitted that the
actual/physical possession is with the original writ petitioner and only a
paper possession was taken. It is submitted that even the possession is
alleged to be taken on 31.12.2013 and before that the Act, 2013 has
come into effect. It is submitted that it is rightly observed and held by the
High Court that as neither the compensation was paid nor the possession
was taken, there shall be deemed lapse of acquisition under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013.
3. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of
the appellants that the possession of the land in question was taken over
on 31.12.2013. The Act, 2013 has come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014.
Therefore, the date on which the Act, 2013 came into force the
possession was already taken over.
3.1 The submission on behalf of respondent No. 1 – original writ
petitioner that only a paper possession was taken and actual/physical
possession has not been taken is concerned, it is required to be noted
that the possession of the land in question is taken over by drawing the
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANR. v. DINESH KUMAR & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
punchnama which is held to be legal mode of taking the possession as
per the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority (supra). Therefore, we have to proceed on the premise that
the possession of land in question was taken over. Even the High Court
has also proceeded further with the matter not disputing that the possession
of the land in question was taken on 31.12.2013. However, thereafter,
on the ground that no com

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