Conditions For Lapse Of Acquisition Not Satisfied: SC Sets Aside Order Declaring Deemed Lapse Of Land Acquisition
The Supreme Court has recently in an appeal preferred by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) set aside the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court by which it allowed the writ petition of a company in a land acquisition case.
The High Court had declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
A two-Judge Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar while relying upon the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 held, “… the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable. Under the circumstances the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.”
Advocate Nitin Mishra appeared on behalf of the appellant i.e., DDA while Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the possession of the land in question was taken in the year 2012 and the respondent was not the recorded owner, and the land was absolutely vested in the Gaon Sabha. Thereafter, the Delhi High Court declared the acquisition with respect to the land in question as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation was not paid to the respondent.
While passing the judgment and order, the High Court heavily relied upon the overruled decision of the Supreme Court in case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183.
The Supreme Court in the above context noted, “… the entire compensation with respect to the land in question was deposited with the Treasury. It is required to be noted that even in the writ petition in paragraph 4 it was stated that in perusal of the award no.09/2008-09, the representatives of the respondents took the possession of the land of the petitioner on 27.09.2012. Even the possession proceeding was also annexed with the writ petition.”
It was further observed by the Court that the judgment passed by the High Court was required to be considered.
“The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed is hereby quashed and set aside”, the Court asserted.
The Court, therefore, dismissed the original writ petition preferred by the respondents filed before the High Court.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside and quashed the judgment of the High Court.
Cause Title- Delhi Development Authority v. Eminent Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.