GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ANR versus RAM PRAKASH SEHRAWAT AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 759 · Decided: 15-12-2022 · 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
759
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 759
759
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY, LAND
AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ANR.
v.
RAM PRAKASH SEHRAWAT AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9201 of 2022)
DECEMBER 15, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Notification under s.4 of LA Act was
issued on 23.01.1965 and award was declared – Possession of the
land was taken and handed over to the DDA on 22.09.1986 – After
a period of 29 years of passing of the award and taking over of
possession, Respondent 1 and 2 filed the writ petition before the
High Court for declaring that the acquisition of lands in question
deemed to be lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – High Court
relied on Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. and declared that the
acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have
lapsed under s.24(2) solely on the ground that the compensation
was not paid to the recorded owners – On appeal, held: The view
taken by the High Court relying upon the decision in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. is unsustainable – The decision
in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. which has been
relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment
and order has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench
of this Court in the case of  Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
and Ors. – Impugned judgment declaring that the acquisition with
respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under
s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 is set aside.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
1 SCR 783 – referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1 
followed
Para 3.2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9201
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 4952 of 2015.
Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
Pandey, Amitabh Ranjan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Vishnu Kant, Satya Ranjan Swain, Karan Arora, Kautilya Briat,
Rabin Majumder, Ms. Akansha Srivastava, Joydeep Mukherjee, Ms.
Mousmi Roy, Nand Ram, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Roshan Kumar, Manish
Vashist, 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. 4952 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition preferred by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein 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
Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Land and Building Department) and the Land
Acquisition Collector have preferred the present appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case,
the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894) was issued on 23.01.1965 and
the award was declared, followed by Section 12(2) notice on 19.09.1986.
As per the counter affidavit filed by the appellants before the High Court,
the possession of the land in question was taken and handed over to the
DDA on 22.09.1986. After a period of approximately 29 years of passing
of the award and taking over of possession, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2
approached the High Court by way of present writ petition and prayed
that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
761
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the impugned
judgment and order, though the High Court has referred to the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants filed before the High Court, in
which it was specifically stated that the possession of the land in question
was taken over and handed over to the DDA on 22.09.1986, however,
thereafter without further entering into the question of taking over the
possession, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has
relie
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.