LexGOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER versus MAHENDER SINGH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A-
B
c
D
E
F
[2016] 6 S.C.R. 986
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER
v.
MAHENDER SINGH AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 9596of2016)
SEPTEMBER 22, 2016
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.2./(2) -
Stay granted in respect of one of the lands covered by the s.4(1)
notification of the 1894 Act -
Effect on the other lands covered by
the same notification - Jn the instant land acquisition proceedings,
award was passed under the 1894 Act - After passing the award
u/s.11 of the 1894 Act, no compensation was paid and possession
was also not taken within five years prior to 01.01.2014, wh_en
2013 Act came into effect - Therefore, in terms of s.24(2) of the
2013 Act, the acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act in respect of
respondents' land have lapsed - Since lapse u!s.24(2) is post-award,
that would affect only the land referred to in the award and not the
enlire land covered by the s.4(1) notification of the 1894 Act under
which the proceedings for acquisition were initiated - Therefore,
effect of stay cannot be extended to entire land - Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 - ss.4(1), 6, 9, Jl, JJA.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.JJA - Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(2) - Difference between lapse ul
s. JJA and lapse u!s.24(2) - Discussed.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Under the scheme of acquisition, an award u/
s.11 has to be passed in respect of each land owned by a person/
G
persons intereste~. Therefore, what is lapsed u/s.llA is not the
entire land as declared u/s.6 but the particular land belonging to
person/persons in whose favour an award u/s.11 had to be passed
within two years of the declaration u/s.6 of the 1894 Act.
[Para
10][992-B-C]
H
986
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER v. MAHENDER
SINGH AND OTHERS
1.2 The lapse is limited only to the land covered by the
particular award(s). [Para 11)(992-D-E]
Laxman Pandya and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others (2011) 14 SCC 94; Mulchand Khanumal
Khatri v. State of Gujarat and others (2012) 5 SCC
365: 2012 {2) SCR 586; Singareni Collieries Company
Limited v. Vemuganti Ramakrishan Rao and others
(2013) 8 SCC 789: 2013 (9) SCR 658 - referred to.
2. The crucial difference between lapse u/s.llA of the 1894
Act and that u/s.24(2) of the 2013 Act is that the former is a pre-
award situation whereas the latter is post-award. In other words,
what gets lapsed u/s.llA of the 1894 Act is the ... "entire
proceedings for the acquisition of the land", whereas, u/s.24(2)
of the 2013 Act, what gets lapsed is the land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which
has culminated in passing of an award u/s.11 but where either
possession is not taken or compensation not paid within five years
prior to 01.01.2014. [Para 13)(993-B-D]
3. Since lapse u/s.24(2) of the 2013 Act is post-award, that
would affect only the land referred to in the award an<I not the
entire lands covered by the s.4(1) notification under which the
proceedings for acquisition were initiated.
In the instant case,
there is no dispute on facts that after passing the award u/s.11 of .
the 1894 Act, no compensation has been paid and the possession
also has not been taken within five years prior to 01.01.2014.
Therefore, s.24(2) of the 2013 Act has to operate, and the
acquisition proceedings in respect of respondents' lands where
award u/s.11 of the 1894 Act had been passed, have lapsed. [Paras
15,J6J[993-1;_-GJ
Om Prakash v. Union of India and others (2010) 4 SCC
17 : 2010 (2) SCR 447 - held inapplicable.
987
A
B
c
D
E
F
Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh 2016 (8)
G
SCALE 655 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2011) 14 sec 94
referred to
Para 11
H
988
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 6 S.C.R.
2012 (2) SCR586
referred to
Para 11
2013 (9) SCR658
referred to
Para 11
2016 (8) SCALE 655 referred to
Para 14
2010 (2) SCR447
held inapplicable
Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9596
of2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.05.2014 of the High Court
of Delhi afNew Delhi in WPC No. 1823 of2014.
Ms. Pinki Anand, ASG, Kailash Vasudev, Neeraj Kumar Jain, R.
S. Sethi, Sr. Advs., R. K. Rathore, Ms. Vibhu Shankar Mishra, Shailender
Saini, Ms. Gunwant DarExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.