LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH EAST) versus DHARAMVIR AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 09-12-2022 · 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
835
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 835
835
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH EAST)
v.
DHARAMVIR AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8992 of 2022)
DECEMBER 09, 2022
[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) –
Land Acquisition – Possession taken on 16.03.2004 – High Court
declared that the land acquisition with respect to the land in question
is deemed to have lapsed on the ground that the amount of
compensation was not paid to the land owners – Held: The view
taken by the High Court is not sustainable in view of the
Constitutional Bench decision of Supreme Court in Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. wherein it was held
that in case possession was taken but compensation not paid then
there is no lapse – High Court order 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.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1 
followed
Para 2.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8992
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 4576 of 2015.
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Sachit Setia, Advs. for the Appellant.
Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
836
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 25.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 4576 of 2015 by which the High Court has
allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents herein and
has declared that the land acquisition proceedings 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 (South East), Delhi
Government has preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court it appears that though it was submitted before the High Court that
the possession of the land in question was taken on 16.03.2004, however
thereafter relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 and by observing that the
compensation with respect to the land in question has not been paid, the
High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the
land acquisition proceedings deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2)
of the Act, 2013.
2.1 However, it is required to be noted that the decision of this
Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra)
relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and
order has been specifically over-ruled subsequently by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129.In paragraphs
365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held
as under:-
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki,
(2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in
which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been
followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar
Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
837
of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannot be said to be laying down
good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are
also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
[(2018) 3 SCC 412], the aspect with respect to the proviso to
Section 24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor” or as
“and” was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision
too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present
judgment.
366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the
award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of
the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.