NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. versus SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 788 · Decided: 10-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR · 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
788
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 788
788
NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.
v.
SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1987 of 2023)
APRIL 10, 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) –
Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by
the private respondent-writ petitioner seeking declaration that
acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have
lapsed in view of s.24(2) – Department’s case that the possession of
the subject land was taken over and used by the Department prior
to 2013 and the compensation was not paid – High Court held the
acquisition is deemed to have lapsed, however the original writ
petitioner would be entitled to compensation under the Act – On
appeal, held : Possession of the subject land was taken over and
was put to use prior to 2013 Act came into force, there would be no
deemed lapse of acquisition and the original writ petitioner not
entitled to compensation under the Act – Impugned Judgment passed
by the High Court not sustainable and set aside – Land Acquisition
Act, 1897.
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 – 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) 8 SCC 129
followed
Para 2.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1987
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.01.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 12143 of 2015.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
789
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj,
Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Bhuvan Kapoor, Saransh Kumar, Digvijay
Dam, Ms. Shivika Mehra, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, 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 dated 15.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition(C) No.12143 of 2015 by which the High Court has
allowed the said writ petitionand has declared that the acquisition with
respect to the subject land 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”), however the High Court has observed and held that the
original writ petitioner would be entitled to compensation under the Act,
2013, the Land and Building Department of the NCT of Delhi and others
have preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears that before the High Court it was the specific case on
behalf of the Department that the possession of the subject land has
been taken. However, thereafter 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 paid, the High Court has
allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings
with respect to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013. However, as the land in question was already put
to use by the beneficiary Department, the High Court has directed that
the original writ petitioner shall be entitled to the compensation under the
New Act.
2.1 Thus, even the High Court has accepted that the possession
of the land in question was already taken over and even the land was put
to use by the Department. Even the original writ petitioner also admitted
the same and therefore prayed that he be paid the compensation under
the Act, 2013. Once the possession of the subject land was taken over
and in fact was put to use prior to 2013 Act came into force, as per the
NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. v.
SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
790
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129, there shall
not be any deemed lapse of acquisition. In paragraph366 it is observed
and held as under:-
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Sec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.