LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR versus JAI PRAKASH TYAGI & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 24-02-2023 · 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
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 12
12
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR
v.
JAI PRAKASH TYAGI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1300 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 24, 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 the decision of Supreme Court in Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
Ors. declared that the acquisition proceedings w.r.t the entire land
in question are deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – It was the specific
case on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector that the possession
with respect to some portion of the lands could not be taken over
due to stay – Held: Despite the same and without going into the
controversy of physical possession, the High Court mainly relying
on Pune Municipal Corporation case passed the impugned judgment
– Decision in the said case has been overruled by the Constitution
Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. –
Applying the law laid down therein to the present case, the High
Court materially erred in declaring that the acquisition proceedings
with respect to the entire land are deemed to have lapsed – There
shall be no deemed lapse w.r.t the acquisition proceedings of the
lands in question – 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. 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 3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1300
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.07.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.2198 of 2015.
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Advs. for the Appellant.
Anil Kumar Sharma, Apoorv Sharma, Anuj Sharma, Archit
Upadhayay, Ms. Charu Sharma, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ms. Ishaan
Sharma, Ashutosh Kaushik, Manish Vashist, 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. 2198 of 2015, by which, the High Court has allowed the said
writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect
to the subject lands in question comprised in Khasra Nos. 35/2/2 (6-04),
36/2/2 (4-13) and 40/2/2 (5-01) total measuring 15 bighas 18 biswa
situated in revenue estate of village Wazirabad are 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,
New Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court and from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the LAC (Land
Acquisition Collector) before the High Court, it appears that it was the
specific case on behalf of the LAC that the possession of Khasra No.
35/2/2 measuring 6 bighas 04 biswa was taken over on 22.09.1997; as
regards Khasra No. 36/2/2 measuring 4 bighas 13 biswa possession
was taken over in respect of 3 bighas of land on 22.09.1997, however,
the possession of 1 bigha 13 biswa out of that Khasra could not be taken
and so far as Khasra No. 40/2/2 is concerned, the possession was not
taken over. It was the case on behalf of the LAC that the possession
with respect to some portion of the lands could not be taken over due to
stay in writ petitions Nos. 2506/1982 and 3631/1982. Despite the above
and without going into the controversy of physical possession, mainly
relying upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR  v. JAI PRAKASH TYAGI
& ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
Solanki and Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court
has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with
respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013.
3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) which has been heavily relied upon by the High
Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.