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. 3539 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under SignaturetheNot VerifiedLand Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) Neetu Sachdeva 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 Anr. have preferred the present appeal.
2.From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even from the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and original respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken on 04.03.1983 and even before the High Court, there was an ownership dispute insofar as the subject land is concerned between the original writ petitioner and the original respondent No. 5. However, despite the above and without going into the controversy of the physical possession, 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, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 of the subject land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
3.At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such the High Court ought to have first decided the ownership dispute and thereafter ought to have considered the locus of the original writ petitioner. Be that it may, the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while overruled by the Constitution Bench decision 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:- commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of+ 24(1)(b).
24(2).
4.In view of the above and applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and when it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and original respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken on 04.03.1983, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. …Appellant(s) Versus Sh. Manish & Anr. …Respondent(s) Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2846 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner and has declared that the land 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 Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. have preferred the present appeal.
Court and even from the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and original respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken on 23.02.2007. However, despite the above, 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, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 of the subject land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
3.However, it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while overruled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and 24(1)(b).
24(2).
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and when it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and original respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken on 23.02.2007, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
Government of NCT of Delhi …Appellant(s) Versus Subhash Gupta & Ors. …Respondent(s) Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2458 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner and has declared that the land 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 Govt. of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
Court and even so stated in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it appears that the possession of the land in question could not be taken because of the operation of the stay order in Writ Petition (C) No. 14129 of 2005 and the same came to be continued by this Court till 11.02.2015. Therefore, there was a stay operating against the taking over of the possession even on the day on which the Act, 2013 came into force. However, despite the above and relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Jagjit Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 2806 of 2004 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, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the physical possession of the subject land was not taken and the compensation has not been paid.
3.The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order and the decision of the High Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh and Ors. (supra), which has also been relied upon by the High Court are just contrary to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and 24(1)(b).
24(2).
4.As per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the period of stay of taking over the possession has to be excluded for the purpose of Section 24(2) of Act, 2013. Even otherwise, once having obtained the stay of possession, thereafter, it will not be open for the landowners to contend that as the possession (which is not taken due to stay) has not been taken therefore, there would be lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. …Appellant(s) Versus Sh. Narender & Anr. …Respondent(s) Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 10670 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner and has declared that the land 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 Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. have preferred the present appeal.
Court and even from the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and original respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken on 14.09.2007. However, despite the above, 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, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 of the subject land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
3.However, it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while overruled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and 24(1)(b).
24(2).
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and when it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and original respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken on 14.09.2007, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.