Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3151 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) NO. 8733 OF 2023)
(@ DIARY NO. 42715 OF 2022)
Govt. of NCT Delhi & Anr. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Dinesh Kumar & Anr. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
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.
4954 of 2016, by which, the High Court has allowed
the said writ petition and has declared that the
acquisition with respect to the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Sachdeva
Date: 2023.04.28
16:27:29 IST
Reason:
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Page 1 of 6
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) has submitted that in the present case
the possession of the disputed land in question was
taken on 31.12.2013 and therefore, as per the law
laid-down by this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.,
reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 there shall not be
any deemed lapse of acquisition under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013.
2.1 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the original writ petitioner – respondent No.
1 herein has submitted that the actual/physical
possession is with the original writ petitioner and
Page 2 of 6
only a paper possession was taken. It is submitted
that even the possession is alleged to be taken on
31.12.2013 and before that the Act, 2013 has come
into effect. It is submitted that it is rightly observed
and held by the High Court that as neither the
compensation was paid nor the possession was
taken, there shall be deemed lapse of acquisition
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
3. Having gone through the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court, it appears that it
was the specific case on behalf of the appellants
that the possession of the land in question was
taken over on 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 the possession
was already taken over.
Page 3 of 6
3.1 The submission on behalf of respondent No. 1 –
original writ petitioner that only a paper possession
was taken and actual/physical possession has not
been taken is concerned, it is required to be noted
that the possession of the land in question is taken
over by drawing the punchnama which is held to be
legal mode of taking the possession as per the
decision of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra). Therefore, we
have to proceed on the premise that the possession
of land in question was taken over. Even the High
Court has also proceeded further with the matter not
disputing that the possession of the land in question
was taken on 31.12.2013. However, thereafter, on
the ground that no compensation has been
paid/tendered to the original writ petitioner, thus,
one of the two ingredients of Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013 is met, the High Court has declared that
Page 4 of 6
the acquisition with respect to the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed. The aforesaid reasoning
and the findings given by the High Court is just
contrary to the law laid -down by this Court in the
case of Indore Development Authority (supra). In
the case of Indore Development Authority
(supra) , it is observed and held that for deemed
lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin
conditions of not taking possession and not
tendering/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, there
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 Indore Development Authority (supra) to the
facts of the case on hand, the judgment and order
passed by the High Court declaring that the
Page 5 of 6
acquisition with respect to the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is
accordingly, quashed and set aside. Present appeal
is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
APRIL 28, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
Page 6 of 6