GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. versus BHAGRATI & ANR

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 13-01-2023 · 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
677
677
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
v.
BHAGRATI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.279 of 2023)
JANUARY 13, 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 respondent-original writ petitioners, seeking declaration that
acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have
lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court allowed the writ petition –
Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Title with respect to the
land in question in favour of the original writ petitioner was yet to
be established – Original petitioner was not the recorded owner –
Recorded owner never came forward to receive the compensation
and therefore, the same was lying unpaid – Thus, unless and until
the right and title of the original writ petitioner was established the
High Court materially erred in entertaining the writ petition – Also,
Pune Municipal Corporation’s case on which the High Court relied
upon, has been overruled in the Indore Development Authority’s case
– Thus, the order passed by the High Court is quashed and set
aside.
Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
SCR 783 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para  3
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 2, 2.2
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 677
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.279 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No.12139 of 2015.
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula,
D. P. Singh Yadav, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, Adv. 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 29.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 12139 of 2015 by which the High Court
has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the private respondent
no.1 herein –original writ petitioner 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 and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant/LAC
before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf
of the appellant and others – original respondents that the award with
respect to the land in question was declared on 19.06.1992 and the
actual vacant physical possession of the subject land was taken on
21.03.2007, out of which the original writ petitioner is claiming 1/12th
share. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant that the possession
was handed over to the DDA after preparing possession proceedings
on the spot. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant/LAC that the
original writ petitioner is not the recorded owner and the recorded owner
never came forward to receive any compensation and hence the same
is lying unpaid. Despite the above and even after observing that the land
in question was taken over thereafter relying upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
679
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the
High Court has erred in keeping the question of title of the subject land
open to be decided in the appropriate court of jurisdiction, has declared
that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed when the compensation had not been paid.
2.1 From the aforesaid, it appears that the title with respect to the
land in question in favour of the original writ petitioner was yet to be
established. The original petitioner was not the recorded owner. The
recorded owner never came forward to receive the compensation and
therefore the same was lying unpaid. Therefore, unless and until the
right and title of the original writ petitioner was established the High
Court has materially erred i

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