UNION OF INDIA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR versus RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 191 · Decided: 13-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
191
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION
COLLECTOR
v.
RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1615 of 2023)
MARCH 13, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND MANOJ MISRA, 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 petitioner’s
case that possession of the agricultural land has been taken – 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 relying upon Pune
Municipal Corporation’s case and on the ground that compensation
has not been paid or tendered allowed the writ petition –
Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Pune Municipal
Corporation’s case has been overruled by this Court in the
Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority’s case
– Applying the law laid by this Court in Indore Development Authority’s
case to the facts of case, and that the physical possession of the
subject land was taken on 22.09.1997, the order of the High Court
is quashed and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
SCR 783 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 2, 2.1
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 2.1, 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1615
of 2023.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 191
191
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
192
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 9269 of 2014.
Madhu Prakash, Rituraj Choudhary, Chandan Kumar,
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G., Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv., Pradhuman
Gohil, Mrs. Taruna Singh Gohil, Ms. Ranu Purohit, Alapati Sahithya
Krishna, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Charudatta Vijayrao Mahindrakar, Keshav
Hegde, Aftab Rasheed, Aftab Ali Khan, Kanu Agarwal, Rajan Kumar
Chourasia, Ms. Baby Devi Bonia, A K Kaul, Shashank Bajpai, Prashant
Singh II, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Sudarsh Menon, Samarendra Beura,
Rajesh Rathore, Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Ashwani Kumar, Anshay
Dhatwalia, Shree Pal Singh, N. S. Vasisht, Ms. Jyoti Kataria, 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. 9269 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”)
with regard to the land 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 Union of India through Land Acquisition
Collector, New Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant
before the High Court that the possession of the land in question has
been taken. Even in the writ petition before the High Court in para (c),
the original writ petitioner had admitted that on 22.09.1997, the possession
of the agricultural land (land in question) has been taken. Despite the
above and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 and solely on the ground that
the compensation has not been paid or tendered, the High Court has
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
193
declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed
to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
2.1 The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by the
High Court, has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and
Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution
Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:-
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
Corpn. [Pune Munici

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