LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MEHDI HASAN (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 672 · Decided: 12-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · 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
672
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 672
672
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
MEHDI HASAN (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8887 of 2022)
DECEMBER 12, 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 proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 –
Possession already taken in 2003 – High Court, on the ground,
that the compensation was not tendered to the land owner under
s.30(2) of Act of 2013, allowed writ petition and declared that the
acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have
lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Hence instant appeal –
Held: As per the law laid down in the case of Indore Development
Authority, it cannot be said that the land proceedings are deemed to
have lapsed – In order to attract s.24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin
conditions of not taking possession and not tendering/payment of
compensation are required to be satisfied – If one of the conditions
is not satisfied, the acquisition proceedings are not deemed to have
been lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – As per the Special
Land Acquisition Officer as the possession was taken on 13.02.2003
and was handed over to the Lucknow Development Authority on
13.02.2003 and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority, the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable – Appeal allowed.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 2
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8887
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Misc. Bench No. 4149
of 2006.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
673
K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Shantanu Krishna, Sidharth Sarthi, Chitansh
Sharma, Animesh Tripathi, Advs. for the Appellant.
Anukul Raj, Anubhav Deep Singh, Ms. Nikita Raj, Kumar
Dushyant Singh, Kabir Dixit, Advs. for the Respondents.
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Samarth Srivastava,
Nishant Kumar, Advs. for the Impleader.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 03.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Misc. Bench No.4149 of 2006 by which
the High Court has allowed the said writ petition to the extent of Plot
No.219, 1 bigha, 10 biswa and 10 biswansi, Village Malesemau, Tehsil
& District Lucknow and has declared that the acquisition with respect
to the said land is deemed to have lapsed under Sub-section (2) of Section
24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the Lucknow Development Authority has
preferred the present appeal.
2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties including Shri R. Basant, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the subsequent purchasers and having considered
the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 and as it is reported
that the possession of the land in question was already taken over in
2003, delay caused in preferring the appeal condoned which as such
was already condoned vide earlier order dated 25.11.2022.
3. Before the High Court the original writ petitioners questioned
the acquisition proceedings in relation to separate plots of land belonging
to them, however during pendency of the writ petition an application
was filed in the writ petition restricted to the plot no.219 only area1
bigha, 10 biswa and 10 biswansi of village Malesemau, Tehsil & District
Lucknow.
3.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court and even taking into consideration the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 - Collector and the Lucknow
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MEHDI HASAN
(DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
674
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
Development Authority filed before the High Court, it appears that it
was the specific case on behalf of the appellant - Authority that the
possession of the land in question was duly taken on 13.02.2003 by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer and was delivered to the Luckn
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.