Supreme Court of India
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANR versus DINESH KUMAR & ANR on 28 April 2023
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
AGOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANR.
v.
DINESH KUMAR & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3151 of 2023)
BAPRIL 28, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) –Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition byCthe writ petitioner seeking declaration that acquisition proceedingspertaining 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 theground that no compensation was paid for the suit land –Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Possession of the disputedDlands was taken on 31.12.2013 by drawing panchnama – Applyingthe law laid by this Court in Indore Development Authority the twinconditions of not taking possession and not paying compensationhas to be satisfied – Thus, if one of the two ingredients of s. 24(2) isnot met, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition u/s.24(2) – Thus, the order of the High Court is set aside – LandEAcquisition Act, 1894.
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors,(2020) 8 SCC 129; [2020] (3) SCR 1 – followed.
Case Law Reference
F[2020] (3) SCR 1 followedPara 4
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3151of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.07.2018 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No.4954 of 2016.G
Ms. Prachi Bajpai, Adv. for the Appellants.
Jaswant Singh Rawat, Virender Singh Tomar, Ms. Ikshita Parihar,Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Advs. for the Respondent.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition(C) No. 4954 of 2016, by which, the High Court has allowed the saidwrit petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to theland in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of theRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as“Act, 2013”), the Govt. of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant(s) hassubmitted that in the present case the possession of the disputed land inquestion was taken on 31.12.2013 and therefore, as per the law laid-down by this Court in the case of Indore Development AuthorityVs. Manoharlal and Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 there shallnot beany deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act,2013.
2.1 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theoriginal writ petitioner – respondent No. 1 herein has submitted that theactual/physical possession is with the original writ petitioner and only apaper possession was taken. It is submitted that even the possession isalleged to be taken on 31.12.2013 and before that the Act, 2013 hascome into effect. It is submitted that it is rightly observed and held by theHigh Court that as neither the compensation was paid nor the possessionwas taken, there shall be deemed lapse of acquisition under Section24(2) of the Act, 2013.
3. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf ofthe appellants that the possession of the land in question was taken overon 31.12.2013. The Act, 2013 has come into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014.Therefore, the date on which the Act, 2013 came into force thepossession was already taken over.
3.1 The submission on behalf of respondent No. 1 – original writpetitioner that only a paper possession was taken and actual/physicalpossession has not been taken is concerned, it is required to be notedthat the possession of the land in question is taken over by drawing the A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Apunchnama which is held to be legal mode of taking the possession asper the decision of this Court in the case of Indore DevelopmentAuthority (supra). Therefore, we have to proceed on the premise thatthe possession of land in question was taken over. Even the High Courthas also proceeded further with the matter not disputing that the possessionof the land in question was taken on 31.12.2013. However, thereafter,Bon the ground that no compensation has been paid/tendered to the originalwrit petitioner, thus, one of the two ingredients of Section 24(2) of theAct, 2013 is met, the High Court has declared that the acquisition withrespect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed. The aforesaidreasoning and the findings given by the High Court is just contrary to theClaw laid -down by this Court in the case of Indore DevelopmentAuthority (supra). In the case of Indore Development Authority(supra), it is observed and held that for deemed lapse under Section24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions of not taking possession and nottendering/paying the compensation are required to be satisfied. Therefore,if one of the two ingredients of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is not met,Dthere shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2)of the Act, 2013.
4. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand,thejudgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisitionEwith respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed isunsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and isaccordingly, quashed and set aside. Present appeal is accordingly allowed.No costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.F
Nidhi Jain(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)
Appeal allowed.
G
H