GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS. versus DHANNU & ANR

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 17-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
397
   [2023] 2 S.C.R. 397
397
 GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS.
v.
DHANNU & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.942 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 17, 2023
[M. R. SHAH, C. T. RAVIKUMAR AND
SANJAY KAROL JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –
High Court relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
Ors. reported as allowed the writ petition filed by the original writ
petitioner-respondent no.1 herein and declared that the acquisition
proceeding w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/
s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation
case has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. reported as  – Applying
the law laid down therein and as admittedly the land belongs to
Gram Sabha and the original writ petitioner was not the recorded
owner and/or even the owner, the High Court ought not to have
entertained the writ petition– Impugned judgment set aside.
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129: [2020] 3 SCR 1 –followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. 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 2.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.942 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.3158 of 2015.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
Pandey, Rajiv Ranjan, Advs. for the Appellants.
C. N. Sreekumar, Sr. Adv., Arjun Verma, Ms. Anupama Kumar,
Ishaan Sharma, Nitin Mishra, 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 dated 16.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 3158 of 2015 by which the High Court has
allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein –
original writ petitioner (now represented through his heirs) 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 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 while allowing the writ petition the High Court has
relied upon and/or followed 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 on the ground that
the possession of the subject land could not be taken. It is required to be
noted that before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of
the appellant that the land belongs to Gram Sabha and therefore the
original writ petitioner had no locus to pray for declaration that the
acquisition with respect to subject land is deemed to have lapsed by
virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. However, without deciding the
question of ownership and keeping the same open, the High Court has
entertained the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 –
original writ petitioner. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even
before the High Court the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
original writ petitioner did not dispute that the land belongs to Gram
Sabha. In that view of the matter when the land belongs to Gram Sabha
which was even admitted on behalf of the original writ petitioner, the
High Court ought not to have entertained the said writ petition at the
instance of the original writ petitioner who was not even the recorded
owner. Even the question with respect to the compensation to be paid
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
399
would arise only in favour of recorded owner and/or in favour of a person
who had a title.
2.1 Even otherwise it is required to be noted that the decision of
this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.
(supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court has been
specifically over-ruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the
case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and
others reported in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.