LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. versus MANISH SETHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 392 · Decided: 17-02-2023 · 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
392
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
   [2023] 2 S.C.R. 392
392
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR.
v.
MANISH SETHI AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 945 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 17, 2023
[M. R. SHAH, C.T RAVIKUMAR AND SANJAY KAROL JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – High Court relying on the decision of
Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported as declared that the acquisition
proceeding initiated under the 1894 Act 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 – Applying the law laid down therein and
considering the stand taken by the appellant before the High Court
that the possession of the disputed land in question was taken, there
shall not be any deemed lapse u/s. 24(2) – 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
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.945 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.05.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.6060 of 2014.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
393
Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
Pandey, Rajiv Ranjan, Ms. Rachita Kadyan, Advs. for the Appellants.
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. 6060 of 2014 by which 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 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 and Building Department and the Land Acquisition Collector
have preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it is apparent that 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 under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 relying
upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.
reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground that the compensation
has not been tendered and/or paid to the landowners. However, it is
required to be noted that before the High Court, it was the specific case
on behalf of the appellant that the possession of the land in question was
taken on 28.03.2007.
3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been overruled by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (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
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. v. MANISH
SETHI AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State
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 unde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.