LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) versus HARI CHAND AND ANR.

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 46 · Decided: 19-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · 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
46
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 46
46
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH)
v.
HARI CHAND AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 2926 of 2023)
APRIL 19, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –
High Court relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
Ors. reported as [2014] 1 SCR 783 declared that the acquisition
proceeding initiated w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have
lapsed u/s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal
Corporation case has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. reported as [2020]
3 SCR 1– Applying the law laid down therein to the present case
and the fact that the possession of the land in question was taken
over, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition – Impugned
judgment set aside.
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129: [2020] 3 SCR 1 –followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. 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. 2926
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 3435 of 2016.
Chandra Prakash, C. P. Rajwar, Vivek Singh, Ms. Somi Sharma,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
47
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. 3435 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition and has declared that the acquisition with regard 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), New Delhi has preferred the
present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court and even as per the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Land
Acquisition Collector before the High Court, it was the case on behalf of
the appellant that the physical possession of the subject land was taken
over and handed over to the beneficiary department on 14.07.1987.
However, thereafter and 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, 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 on the ground
that the compensation with respect to the land in question had not been
paid.
2.1 The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by the
High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order, has been
specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case
of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (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
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) v. HARI CHAND
AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
48
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.