GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. versus RATI RAM & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 925 · 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
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
925
925
GOVT. OF NCT OF  DELHI & ANR.
v.
RATI RAM & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 399 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 Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs
Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors allowed the writ petition preferred
by the respondents/original writ petitioner and held that 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. –
Possession of the land in question was taken over by drawing the
possession receipt on the spot – Applying the law laid by Supreme
Court in Indore Development Authority to the facts of the case –Order
of the High Court set aside – 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 2.2, 4
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 2.2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.399 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.12145 of 2015.
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 925
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
926
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
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. 12145 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed
the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein 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,
Rehabilitatio and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
“Act, 2013”), the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. have preferred the
present appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court.
2.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears that before the High Court, the appellant and the original
respondents challenged the locus of the original writ petitioner to
challenge the acquisition proceedings. It was the specific case on behalf
of the department that the recorded owner was the Gaon Sabha. Before
the High Court, it was also the specific case on behalf of the department
/ Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) that the possession of the land in
question was taken over by preparing the possession proceedings on
25.01.2000 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
In paragraphs 4, 6 and 7, it was stated in the counter affidavit as under:-
“4. That the present writ petition is further liable to be
dismissed as the petitioners have not placed on record any
document showing therein their entitlement over the subject
land as they are not the recorded owners in the revenue records
thus the petitioners are not entitled to any relief before the
Hon’ble Court under the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is
claiming to be one of the successors of Late Sh. Harkesh who
was having bhoomidari rights, however no Surviving
Membership Certificate has been filed along with the writ
petition. It is submitted that under the bhoomidari rights, the
land remained under the ownership of Gaon Sabha as such in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
927
the present case as well, the recorded owner of the land is
Gaon Sabha which has not been made as a necessary party in
the present writ petition.
X X X X X X X X
6. That it is submitted that for the purpose of planned
development of Delhi, the answering respondent issued a
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
on 23.6.1989 which was followed by Notification under Section
6 of the said Act dated 20.06.1990 for pla
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.