GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR versus MANJEET KAUR & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 202 · Decided: 13-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · 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
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
v.
MANJEET KAUR & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1458 of 2023)
MARCH 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) –
It was the specific case on behalf of the appellant that the original
writ petitioner or subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge
the acquisition – However, same was not dealt by the High Court –
High Court relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs
Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & ors held that the acquisition
proceedings in respect of land in question deemed to have lapsed
u/s. 24(2) of 2013 Act on the ground that neither possession of the
subject land has not been taken nor has the compensation been
tendered/paid to the original petitioner – On appeal, held: In the
case of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. it was held that subsequent purchaser
has no locus to claim lapse of acquisition proceedings – Even
otherwise, the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation
has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
in case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. –
Applying the law laid by the Supreme Court in cases of Godfrey
Philips (I) Ltd, Shiv Kumar and Indore Development Authority, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
unsustainable – Appeal allowed.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183; Shiv Kumar
and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2019) 10 SCC
229; Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips
(I) Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 decided
by the Supreme Court); M. Venkatesh & Ors. v.
Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (2015)
17 SCC 1 – referred to.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 202
202
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
203
Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 6, 7
(2014) 3 SCC 183
referred to
Para 2, 6
(2019) 10 SCC 229
referred to
Para 3, 4, 7
(2015) 17 SCC 1
referred to
Para 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1458
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 6158 of 2016.
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sumit Bansal, Ms. N. Annapoorani, Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma,
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 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition
(C) No. 6158 of 2016, by which, the High Court has allowed the said
writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect
to Khasra No. 668/1 min (0- 12) and 668/2 (01-08) total admeasuring 2
bighas situated at the Revenue Estate of Village Satbari, New Delhi, are
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 & Anr. have preferred the present appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court. From the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court, it appears that the High Court has allowed the 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 Act, 2013,
relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.,
(2014) 3 SCC 183, and by observing that neither the possession of the
land in question has been taken nor the compensation has been tendered/
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. MANJEET KAUR &
ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
paid as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra).
3. However, it is required to be noted that before the High Court,
it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant(s) that original writ
petitioner being the subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the
acquisition/deemed lapse of acquisition. Even from the averments made
in original writ petition, the original writ petitioner claimed the ownership
on the basis of the agreeme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.