UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 22-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · 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
151
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
v.
SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5439 of 2022)
AUGUST 22, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) –
Lapse of acquisition Proceedings – Claim of – Land Acquisition
proceedings was challenged before the High Court – The High Court
declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the subject
land had lapsed in terms of s.24(2) of the Act 2013 – High Court
relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
Others – On appeal, held: A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court
in the case of the Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and
Others, has specifically overruled the decision in the case of the
Pune Municipal Corporation – In such a situation, no relief of lapse
of acquisition proceedings can be countenanced in view of the law
laid down in the case of Indore Development Authority  –  Once   it
is   held   that   there   is   no   lapse   of acquisition proceedings u/
s. 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the land which has stood vested with the
appellant continues to do.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and
others, (2020) 8 SCC 129: [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Another v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others (2014) 3
SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783; Sree Balaji Nagar
Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2015)
3 SCC 353 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783                 referred to
Para 3
[2014] 7 SCR 799
referred to
Para 3
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 3.1
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 151
151
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5439
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 1648 of 2015.
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
S. K. Rout, Prithvi Pal, Omkar Prasad, Praveen Swarup,
Ms. Payal Swarup, Rahul Tomar, Chandra Pratap Singh, Kritgya Kumar,
Kaushal Jeet, 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 01.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.1648 of 2015 whereby the High Court has
declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the subject land
had lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the Union of India
through Land Acquisition Collector and Another have preferred the present
appeal.
2. We have heard Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. S.K. Rout, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4.
3. The undisputed facts are that in the present case, the possession
of the land in question was already taken over by the appropriate authority
in the year 1987. It is also an admitted position that the subject land has
been utilized way back in the year 1987 for a park by East Delhi Municipal
Corporation. However, despite the above and relying upon the decisions
of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and another
versus Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others reported in (2014)
3 SCC 183 and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association vs. State
of Tamil Nadu, (2015) 3 SCC 353, the High Court has declared that
the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land had lapsed in
terms of  Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
3.1 In a subsequent decision, a Constitution Bench of this Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
153
and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 has specifically over- ruled the decisions
of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and
Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association (supra). In paragraph
366 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 Section  24(1)(a) in case
the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement
of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation
has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case  the  award  has  been  pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.