LexLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR. versus B. S. DHILLION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 229 LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR. v. B. S. DHILLION & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1597 of 2023) MARCH 13, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.] Right to far compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – On facts, award passed with respect to the subject land in the year 1992 – Possession of the land was taken in the year 2006 and was handed over to the DDA on the spot by preparing the possession proceedings – Writ petition by the private respondent-writ petitioner seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court relying upon the Pune Municipal Corporation’s case held the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.’s case has been overruled by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority’s case – Applying the law laid by this Court in Indore Development Authority’s case, there shall not be any deemed lapse u/s. 24(2) – Order passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 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 [2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 3 [2014] 1 SCR 783 referred to Para 2, 2.1 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1597 of 2023. [2023] 2 S.C.R. 229 229 A B C D E F G H 230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2016 of the High Court of Delhi in New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2916 of 2015. Atul Kumar, Avs Kadyan, Rajiv Ranjan, Amitabh Ranjan, Rahul Pandey, Mrs. Archana Kumari, Mrs. Sweety Singh, Mrs. Rachita Kadyan, Advs. for the Appellants. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G., N.S. Vasisht, Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Varun Kapur, Ms. Smita Maan, Ashok Mathur, Sumit Bansal, Manish Paliwal, Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Ranjit Singh Daler, D.V. Khatri, Mansoor Ali, T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ishaan Sharma, Manish Vasisht, Ashutosh Kaushik, Nitin Mishra, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Vikas Gupta, Ms. Vuzmal Nehru, Ankit Gupta, Satya Parkash Gautam, Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, Jaideep Malik, Nitesh Dhankar, Sujeet Kumar, Mahesh Chaurasia, Sunil Kumar Tomar, Ms. Soni, Ms. Reena Patel, Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Varun Agarwal, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Mrs. Rukhmini Bobde, Prashant Rawat, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Malvika Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Tanwangi Shukla, Ravi Bharuka, Ankit Agarwal, Ms. Shalini Chandra, Praveen Swarup, K.P. Singh, Chandra Pratap Singh, Hari Sahteshwar, Devesh Maurya, Ms. Pratishtha Majumdar, Nishit Agrawal, Ishan Sharma, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Dharam Raj Ohlan, Md. Zeeshan Anjum, Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Surjeet Singh, Akash, Vishwa Pal Singh, 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. 2916 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of 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 Land Acquisition Collector and Anr. have preferred the present appeal. 2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with respect to the land in question was made as far as back on 19.06.1992. According to A B C D E F G H 231 the appellants and so stated in the counter before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants that the possession of the land in question was taken on 21.04.2006 and was handed over to the DDA on the spot by preparing the possession proceedings. However, despite the above and relying 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, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.