LexLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH), NEW DELHI AND ANR. versus SURESH B. KAPUR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH), NEW DELHI AND ANR. v. SURESH B. KAPUR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 8197 of 2022) DECEMBER 02, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Respondent no.1 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 on the ground that neither possession of the land taken over nor the compensation has been paid – High Court noted that compensation has been deposited with the court but the possession of the land in question is not taken over – High Court allowed the petition and declared the acquisition proceedings to be lapsed – On appeal, held: The issue was settled by the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. which was not considered by High Court – The acquisition proceedings were under the subject matter of litigation due to which authorities were unable to take the possession of the lands – Such non taking of possession cannot be in favour of the landowners – Acquisition proceedings should not deemed to be lapsed – Judgment passed by High Court set aside. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: The High Court has not appreciated the reasons why the authority could not take the possession. The acquisition proceedings were under challenge before the High Court as well as thereafter before this Court. The acquisition proceedings have attained finality pursuant to the judgment and order passed by this Court. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings were under challenge and the subject matter of litigation. Therefore, when the acquisition proceedings were the subject matter of litigation and because of that the authority could not take the possession of the lands in question and as such not taking over the [2022] 15 S.C.R. 832 832 A B C D E F G H 833 possession cannot be in favour of the landowners, more particularly, when the acquisition proceedings have been appealed upto this Court. [Paras 6.2] Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – Followed. Balak Ram Glupta v. Union of India Writ Petition No. 1639 of 1985; Gyanender Singh v. Union of India & Ors. W.P. (C) No. 1393 of 2014; 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 2.4 [2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 3 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8197 of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 06.07.2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2163 of 2015. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants. Rishab Nagar, Raghab Nagar, Gopal Singh Chauhan, Deepak Goel, Rajiv Ghawana, Ms. Akshita Chhatwal, Ranjit Singh, T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Siddharth Vasudev, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Akansh Singh, Ravi Bharuka, Ankit Agarwal, Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, 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. 2163 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the lands 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 LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH), NEW DELHI v. SURESH B. KAPUR [M. R. SHAH, J.] A B C D E F G H 834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 15 S.C.R. Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Land Acquisition Collector has preferred the present appeal. 2. That the dispute is with respect to the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 717 (3-02), 718/1 (3-05), 756/2/1 (2-17) and 757/1 (3-07) measuring 12 bighas and 11 biswas in village Chattarpur, New Delhi. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) was issued on 25.11.1980, which was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 issued vide notification/ declaration dated 07.06.1985. 2.1 It appears that unde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.