LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT THR. SECRETARY & ANR versus ATTRO DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 374 · Decided: 11-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 3 · 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
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 374
374
LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT THR. SECRETARY &
ANR.
v.
ATTRO DEVI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2749 of 2023)
APRIL 11, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) –
Notification u/s 4 was issued on 23.06.1989 – Another notification
u/s 6 was issued on 20.06.1990 – Award announced on 19.06.1992
– Respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming that
neither possession was taken over nor compensation was paid thus
the acquisition had lapsed u/s 24(2) – The appellant’s stand before
the High Court was that the possession of the land was taken on
06.12.2012 but compensation could not be paid to the recorded
land owners as they never claimed the same – High court relied on
the case of Pune Municipal Corporation’s for interpretation of s.24(2)
as per which possession as well as payment must be complete, within
five years and since compensation has not been paid the acquisition
in question has lapsed – On appeal, held: Pune Municipal
Corporation case had been overruled by Indore Development
Authority’s caseas per which compliance of either of the two
conditions i.e. taking over of possession of the land or payment of
compensation, is good enough to sustain the acquisition – In the
case at hand, the possession of the land was taken over by the
Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to Delhi Development
Authority, hence, one of the conditions being satisfied thus there is
no deemed lapse and the acquisition is sustained – Judgment of
High Court unsustainable – Accordingly, set aside.
Disposing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore
Development Authority’s case had opined that satisfaction of
either of the conditions namely either taking possession of the
acquired land or payment of compensation to the landowners would
be sufficient to save the acquisition from being lapsed in terms of
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. [Para 11][377-F-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
375
2. It is a fact to be noticed and taken care of that large
chunk of land is acquired for planned development to take care
of immediate need and also keep buffer for future requirements.
Such portion of land may be lying vacant also. As has been
observed in Indore Development Authority’s case by this court,
the State agencies are not supposed to put police force to protect
possession of the land taken after process of acquisition is
complete. As far as the case in hand is concerned, the land even
if lying vacant, is required now for a project of national importance.
[Para 13][382-B-D]
3. It is the undisputed fact on the record, as has been noticed
in the impugned order passed by the High Court, the possession
of the land was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector and
handed over to Delhi Development Authority. Report of
possession proceedings dated 06.12.2012 has also been placed
on record. Hence, one of the conditions being satisfied, no need
to examine any other argument. [Para 14][382-E]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal Solanki
& Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 7
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2749
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 10075 of 2015.
Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
Pandey, Rajiv Ranjan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv., Rakesh Kumar -I, Narendra Kumar,
Sataroop Das, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh
Kaushik, Sumit Gupta, Prateek Madnani, Govind, Rahul Shyam Bhandari,
Advs. for the Respondents.
LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT THR. SECRETARY v.
ATTRO DEVI & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellants have challenged the order dated 20.12.2017
passed by the High Court of Delhi. Vide aforesaid order, writ petition
filed by the respondents was allowed holding that in view of Section
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the
2013 Act
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.