LexGOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI versus MOHD. MAQBOOL & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R. [2022] 17 S.C.R. 802 802 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. MOHD. MAQBOOL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 9229 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 proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the acquisition proceedings and also for a declaration that the acquisition with respect to the land is deemed to have been lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – According to the Land Acquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavit before the High Court, the possession of the disputed land in question along with the other lands were taken over and handed over to DDA on 04.03.1983 – High Court, on the ground, that the compensation was not tendered to the land owner, allowed writ petition and declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Hence instant appeal – Held: As per the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others for the purpose of lapse under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions of not taking over possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are required to be satisfied and that if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be lapse of the acquisition proceedings under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – According to the possession certificate and the specific case on behalf of the appellant and the Land Acquisition Collector that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 04.03.1983 and handed over to DDA, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. As per the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority A B C D E F G H 803 v. Manoharlal and others for the purpose of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 twin conditions of not taking over possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are required to be satisfied. As per the decision in the case of Indore Development Authority if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be lapse of the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the case of Indore Development Authority, the Constitution Bench of this Court has specifically overuled the decision of this Court 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. [Para 3.1][805-C-E] 2. According to the possession certificate and the specific case on behalf of the appellant and the Land Acquisition Collector that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 04.03.1983 and handed over to DDA, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. [Para 4][807-H; 808- A] 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. Case Law Reference [2014] 1 SCR 783 referred to Para 2 [2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 3.1 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9229 of 2022 From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 27 of 2015. Chandra Prakash, C. P. Rajwar, Vivek Singh, Pushkar Anand, Advs. for the Appellant. Nishit Agrawal, Ishaan Sharma, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Advs. for the Respondents. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. MOHD. MAQBOOL & ORS. A B C D E F G H 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 17 S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.27 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 – 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 a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.