LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR. versus ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 13-03-2023 · 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
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR.
v.
ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 482 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) –
High Court relying on its decision in Gyanender Singh & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 1393/2014] and the decision of
Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation case, allowed the writ
petition and declared that the acquisition w.r.t the land in question
is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) on the ground that neither the
possession of the land in question was taken nor the compensation
was tendered/paid – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal
Corporation has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of Supreme
Court in Indore Development Authority case – Also, the decision of
the High Court in Gyanender Singh is contrary to the said case – As
per the law laid down in Indore Development Authority, the period
during which the stay was operating is to be excluded – Thus, in
the present case, in view of the fact that even when the 2013 Act
came into force the stay order continued to operate due to which
possession of the land in question could not be taken, as also
observed by the High Court, there shall be no deemed lapse u/s.24(2)
– Impugned judgment 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.
Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Decision dtd. 23.09.2014 of High Court of Delhi in
W.P. (C) No. 1393/2014 – referred to.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 196
196
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
197
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 482 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 3581 of 2015.
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula,
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ravinder Singh, Srisatya
Mohanty, Ms. Mantika Haryani, Sanjeev Kaushik, Shreyas Awasthi,
Himanshu Chakravarty, Devvrat Singh, Muskan Surana, Ms. Sruthi
Venugopal, Vinay K. Shailendra, Ms. Worthing Kasar, Jagjit Singh
Chhabra, Saksham Maheshwari, Nitin Mishra, 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. 3581 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 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 Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. have preferred the
present appeal.
2. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court it can be seen that by the impugned
judgment and order the High Court has declared that the acquisition
with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed on the
ground that neither the possession of the land in question was taken nor
the compensation has been tendered/paid 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, and decision of the High Court in the case of Gyanender Singh &
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR. v. ASHOK
KUMAR & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors decided on 23.09.2014 in W.P. (C)
No. 1393/2014.
3. However, it is required to be noted that before the High Court
it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant(s) and so recorded by
the High Court in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment and order that
the physical possession could not be taken because of the operation of
stay order passed in writ petitions in which the stay order was continuing.
The High Court has also observed that “it is an admitted position that the
stay order continued to operate till 01.01.2014 when th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.