M/S MAGNUM PROMOTERS P. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 98 · Decided: 27-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2014] 13 S.C.R. 98 
M/S MAGNUM PROMOTERS P. LTD. 
v. 
UNION OF.INDIA & ORS. 
(I.A. 3 of2014) 
h 
(Civil Appeal No.4284 of 2011) 
NOVEMBER 27, 2014 
C 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land 
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -
s. 24(2) -
Land acquisition -
Issuance of acquisition 
0 
Notification for different parcels of land including land and 
building owned by the appellant - Subsequently, issuance 
of notices regarding the said land by Assistant Collector to 
the appellant -
Writ petition challenging acquisition 
Notifications by the appellant - Dismissed on 16.05.2008, 
E holding that the acquisition of land by NCT Delhi was legal 
and valid - On appeal, case of the appellant that actual 
physical possession of the land not taken by Land Acquisition 
Collector even after 5 years being elapsed after the award 
nor compensation awarded, as such acquisition proceedings 
F lapsed - Held: Plea of taking over possession of land of the 
appellant either on 27.12.2013 as per the original record or 
on 31.12.2013 as per document, cannot be accepted -
Respondents misrepresented certain relevant facts by filing 
affidavit with an oblique motive to deny the valuable statutory 
G right accrued in favour of appellant u/s. 24(2), which conduct 
is deprecated -Acquisition proceedings of appellant's land 
have lapsed, thus, acquisition proceeding notifications 
quashed. 
H 
98 
M/S MAGNUM PROMOTERS P. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 
99 
Allowing the application, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 The plea of taking over possession of 
land of the appellant either on 27 .12.2013 as per the 
original record or on 31.12.2013 as per document 
Annexure R1, cannot be accepted. The respondents 8 
misrepresented certain relevaot facts to this Court by 
filing the affidavit with an oblique motive to deny the 
valuable statutory right accrued in favour of the appellant 
under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation 
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation c 
and Resettlement Act, 2013. Hence, the conduct of 
respondent No. 4 and officials of respondent No.3 in 
misrepre_senting facts is deprecated. [Para 15][114-D-H] 
1.2 The document Annexure R·1 to the response 
affidavit was falsely created by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 D 
with a malafide intention not only to defeat the statutory 
right of the appellant-land owner accrued in its favour 
under the provision of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, 
but it is a clear case of misrepresentation of facts to this 
Court with an oblique motive to. deprive the valuable E 
constitutional right of the appellant to the land involved 
in these proceedings. This conduct of the ADM/Land 
Acquisition Collector is highly objectionable and 
reprehensible as his action in creating false official F 
documents to deny the legitimate right accrued in favour 
of the appellant, which conduct of him amounts to 
breach of trust reposed with him by the public to 
discharge his public functions in the larger Interest of 
public. The public officers are required to maintain the G 
public record honestly, truly and correctly, the Additional 
District Magistrate cadre indulging in such unlawful acts 
will discredit the credibility of the public office from 
maintaining trust and confidence in the public office 
H 
.... 
100 . 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 13S.C.R. 
A which is most important and necessary for the good 
administration of the second respondent. [Para 16) 
[114-F-H; 115-A·C] 
1.3 The plea of the respondents that as per memo 
8 of possession dated 31.12.2013 the possession of the 
said land of the appellant was taken and handed over to 
the ODA-respondent no.4 on the same day Is not 
accepted as it is not done in fact and could not have 
been done in view of the interim order and also the same 
c was not been done in the presence of independent 
witnesses as required in law. Further, the legal principle 
as to how taken over physical possession of the 
acquired land means the actual taking of possession of 
it from the land owners/interested persons. [Paras 17, 
D 18][116-C-D; 117-B] 
1.4 The plea taken regarding contravention of 
Sections 3 and 4 for transfer of the land in question by 
the appellant during the pendency of the proceedings 
as it was acquired by the NCT on behalf of the Central 
E Government by placing reliance on Article 239AA of the 
Constitution has no application to the fact situation. It 
was contended th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.