NORTHERN DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus RAM CHANDER SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 419 · Decided: 09-02-2023 · 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
419
419
NORTHERN DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
v.
RAM CHANDER SINGH AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 733 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 09, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land acquired
u/s.4 of the Act, 1984 vide Notification dated 13.11.1959 – High
Court, relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation, allowed writ petition filed by
respondents and declared that acquisition with respect to the land
in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 as
the assessed compensation was never paid to the original owners
or his acknowledged successor-in-interest and instead the same was
deposited sometime in the year 1967 with the Treasury – Held: High
Court did not accept the case on behalf of the appellant that the
actual vacant physical possession of the land in question was taken
over solely on the ground that the land is vacant and the vacant
portions in fact have been mortgaged and who constructed the
boundary wall, which cannot be recited in the present proceedings
– Nothing on record that at any point of time, either the recorded
owners or his successors had made any grievance with respect to
non-payment of compensation – Even the decision in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation has been subsequently overruled by
the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Indore Development
Authority –  Accordingly, twin conditions namely, not taking
possession and not paying compensation have to be satisfied and if
one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any lapse of
the acquisition – Possession of land in question was duly taken on
01.05.1964 – High Court, thus, committed serious error in declaring
that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed u/s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Judgment of High Court
unsustainable.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 419
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
420
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & Ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 – held
overruled.
Case Law Reference
(2014) 3 SCC 183
held overruled
Para 2.3
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 3.3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.733 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No.9333 of 2014.
Praveen Swarup, K. P. Singh, Ms. Payal Swarup, Ms. Pratishtha
Majumdar, Ajay Kumar Giri, Ms. Devesh Maurya, Devesh Maurya,
Advs. for the Appellant.
V Giri, Sr. Adv., Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Setu Niket, Rajat Bhatia,
Ms. Priyanjali Singh, 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 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ
Petition (C) No. 9333 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition preferred by the respondents herein and has declared
that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed by virtue of 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 North Delhi
Municipal Corporation (NDMC) has preferred the present appeal.
2. In the present case, the lands of village Chowkri Mubarakbad
were acquired vide Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 dated
13.11.1959. The Award came to be passed on dated 20.02.1964. One
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
421
Bodey S/o Munna Singh and Kalu Ram S/o Hetu were the recorded
owners. According to the appellant, actual vacant physical possession
of the subject land was taken over and handed over to the requisition
agency. Till the writ petition was filed, neither the writ petitioners nor the
recorded owners challenged the acquisition proceedings under the Act,
1894.
2.1 That the private respondents herein – original writ petitioners
approached the High Court by way of present writ petition for a
declaration that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The original
writ petitioners claimed the ownership over the land admeasuring 3000
sq. yards, i.e., 6 bigha from the share fallen to Bodey. It was the case on
be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.