THE SECRETARY, LAND & BUILDING DEPT. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS versus OM PRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 777 · Decided: 20-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
777
777
THE SECRETARY, LAND & BUILDING DEPT. GOVT. OF NCT
OF DELHI & ORS.
v.
OM PRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.424 of 2023)
20th JANUARY 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND HIMA KOHLI 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) – High Court held the acquisition is deemed
to have lapsed on the ground that compensation with respect to the
land was not tendered – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable –
Possession of the land was taken over and handed over to the
beneficiary department in the year 1981 – Applying the law laid by
this Court in Indore Development Authority’s case, the twin conditions
of not taking possession and not paying compensation has to be
satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not
be any lapse u/s. 24(2) – Furthermore, the grievance with respect
to not tendering the full compensation was made after a period of
24 years from the date of passing of the award and on the Act of
2013 coming into force, and it was the specific case on behalf of
the department that payment of compensation with respect to the
lands could not be ascertained due to torn condition of Naksha
Muntzamin – Applying the law laid down in the Indore Development
Authority’s case, the order passed by the High Court is quashed
and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors,
(2020) 8 SCC 129 – followed.
Case Law Reference
(2020) 8 SCC 129
followed
Para 2.3,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.424 of
2023.
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 777
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
778
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.5664 of 2014.
With
Civil Appeal No.423 of 2023.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Manish Vashist, Roshan
Kumar, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. A. Sahitya Veena, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Nitin Mishra, Ishaan
Sharma, 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 18.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 5664 of 2014, by which, the High Court
has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition
proceedings with respect to the land(s) 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 Government of NCT
of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority have preferred the present
appeals.
2. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued as far back as on 23.01.1965.
Award was declared on 09.01.1981. According to the Govt. of NCT of
Delhi and as per the counter affidavit filed before the High Court,
possession of the land in question was taken over and handed over to
the beneficiary department on 23.09.1981. However, payment of
compensation with respect to the land(s) in question could not be
ascertained due to torn condition of the Naksha Muntzamin.
2.1 That after a period of approximately 24 years, from the date
of passing of the Award and on the Act, 2013 coming into force, to take
the benefit of the said Act, the respondent(s) herein – original writ
petitioners filed the writ petition(s) before the High Court in the year
2014, for declaration that the acquisition with respect to the lands in
question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013,
contending, inter-alia, that full compensation in accordance with the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not tendered.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
779
2.2 However, without taking into consideration the fact that
possession of the lands in question was taken over and handed over to
the beneficiary department on 23.09.1981, the High Court, by the
impugned judgment and order has declared that the acquisition with
respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed to the extent of
original writ petitioners share, as it appears from the counter affidavit
that it cannot be clearly ascertained as to whethe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.