GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. versus KHAJAN SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 20-01-2023 · 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
913
913
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
v.
KHAJAN SINGH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 361 of 2023)
JANUARY 20, 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) –
High Court relying upon the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation
& Anr. v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors observed that though
possession of the land in question was taken over but as
compensation was not paid, the acquisition proceedings in respect
of land in question deemed to have lapsed u/s. 24(2) of 2013 Act –
On appeal, held: The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.
v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors has been specifically overruled
by the Constitution Bench in the case Indore Development Authority
v. Manoharlal and Ors. – The case of Indore Development Authority,
for lapsing of acquisition u/s. 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions,
namely, possession not taken and compensation not tendered are
required to be satisfied – It is observed and held that even if one of
the conditions is not satisfied, in that case also, there shall not be
any lapsing u/s. 24(2) of the Act, 2013 – In the present case,
admittedly the possession of the land in question was taken over on
the different dates as mentioned in the returns / counter affidavit
before the High Court – Therefore, impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court unsustainable – Appeal allowed.
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 2.1,2.2, 3
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 2.1
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 913
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
914
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.361 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.6719 of 2015.
Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
Pandey, Avs Kadyan, Rajiv Ranjan, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Sujeeta
Srivastava, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal,
Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Smita Maan,
Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Shekhar Yadav, Ms.
Iti Sharma, Rahul Bhatia, Rachita Kadyan, N. S. Vashist, Gagan Gupta,
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
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. 6719 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated
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
(hereinafte referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of
Delhi and Anr. have preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
2.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears that while passing the impugned judgment and order,
the High Court has relied upon 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 and has observed
that though the possession of the land in question was taken over on
specific dates mentioned in the returns /counter affidavit but as the
compensation was not tendered, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.
Therefore, even the High Court has also not disputed that the original
writ petitioners – original landowners were dispossessed on specific
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
915
dates mentioned in the returns / counter affidavit. Even in the writ petition
also, the original writ petitioners have specifically admitted that they
were dispossessed. However, they claimed the lapse of acquisition solely
on the ground that the compensation was not paid / tendered relying
upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. (supra), which decision of this Court has been
specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court

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