Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
M/S MAGNUM PROMOTERS P. LTD. – APPELLANT
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
I.A.3 of 2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.4284 OF 2011
Decided on: 27-11-2014
(b) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Authorities making false statements and creating false documents – Misrepresentation of facts – Mala fide intention – To deprive appellant of his valuable right – Amounting to breach of trust – Officer of Additional District Magistrate cadre indulging in such unlawful acts – Deprecated. (Para 16)
(c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11 and 16 – There can be no vesting of land unless actual possession is taken – Procedures requires taking over possession in presence of independent witnesses – Not done in fact – Further, possession could not have been taken in view of interim order of Court. (Para 16)
(2011) 5 SCC 386; (2012) 1 SCC 792 – Relied upon
(2009) 10 SCC 501 – Referred
(d) Delhi Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972 – Sections 3 and 4 r/w Article 239AA, Constitution of India – Transfer of land by appellant during pendency of proceedings – Contention that land acquired by NCT of Delhi for Central Government hence transfer by appellant was prohibited – Rejected in view of Notifications showing acquisition by and for NCT of Delhi – Provisions of Act not attracted. (Para 20)
(e) Delhi Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972 – Sections 3, 4 and 9 – Competent authority permitting appellant to transfer land to in favour of its subsidiary company – Sections 3, 4 and 9 having no application – No infirmity in transfer. (Para 21)
(f) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Possession not taken within prescribed period – Compensation not paid – Acquisition proceeding has lapsed. (Para 22)
(2014) 3 SCC 183; (2014) 6 SCC 564; (2014) 6 SCC 583; (2014) 6 SCC 586; 2014 (10) SCALE 388 – Impliedly relied upon
(1993) 4 SCC 369; (1996) 3 SCC 600; (1971) 2 SCC 540 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) gave sanction to the appellant for constructing the farmhouse from common land. The Completion Certificate with regard to the farm house on the land in question was issued to the appellant by the MCD.
The Government of National Capital Territory issued Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 covering the land and building owned by the appellant. The public purpose mentioned in the said acquisition notification was for development of Vasant Kunj Phase IV.
A declaration under Section 6(1) of the repealed L.A. Act was issued by the NCT, Delhi in respect of the land sought to be acquired including the land owned by the appellant.
On 9th June, 1999, notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the repealed L.A. Act with regard to the land in question were issued by the Land Acquisition Collector to the appellant.
On 9th June, 1999, the appellant filed a writ petition questioning the legality of the aforesaid acquisition notifications published under Sections 4 and 6 of the repealed L.A. Act. Other similarly placed land holders also challenged the said two notifications before the High Court. The writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Land acquisition proceeding has lapsed.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Judgment
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.
1. This I.A. No.3 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 4284 of 2011 is filed by the appellant seeking for direction and appropriate orders for disposal of this appeal in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short ‘the Act of 2013’). The appellant-land owner has come to this Court questioning the correctness of the judgment and order dated 16.05.2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C)No. 3695 of 1999, inter alia, urging various facts and legal contentions.
2. Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder:
The appellant is the lawful owner of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 750 Min (1-2 ½) and 751 Min (0-18) situated in the revenue estate of Village Malikpur, Kohi alias Rangpuri, Tehsil Mehrauli in the National Capital Territory of Delhi (for short ‘NCT, Delhi’). The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) vide its sanction bearing No. S.N.406/B/HQ/17/148/AE (B) HQ III dated 12.07.1990 gave sanction for constructing the farmhouse from common land. On 17.12.1993, the Completion Certificate with regard to the farm house on the land in question was issued to the appellant by the MCD. On 27.06.1996, the Government of National Capital Territory issued Notification No.F.9 (12)/95/L&B/LA/8474 dated 01.06.1995 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ’the repealed L.A. Act’) for the acquisition of the different parcels of land including an area measuring 369 bighas and 1 biswa situated in the revenue estate of village Malikpur Kohi alias Rangpuri in the NCT, Delhi. The above said notification issued for acquisition of the land covered the land and building owned by the appellant bearing Khasra No. 750 for 3 bighas and Khasra No.751 for 3.12 bighas. The public purpose mentioned in the said acquisition notification was for development of Vasant Kunj Phase IV.
3. On 24th June, 1997, a declaration under Section 6(1) of the repealed L.A. Act was issued by the NCT, Delhi in respect of the land sought to be acquired including the land owned by the appellant. On 9th June, 1999, notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the repealed L.A. Act with regard to the land in question were issued by the Land Acquisition Collector to the appellant. On 9th June, 1999, the appellant filed a writ petition (c) No. 3695 of 1999 before the High Court of Delhi, questioning the legality of the aforesaid acquisition notifications published under Sections 4 and 6 of the repealed L.A. Act urging various grounds. Other similarly placed land holders also challenged the said two notifications before the High Court. The writ petitions were heard together by the High Court and passed its judgment and order dated 16.05.2008 by dismissing the writ petitions holding that the acquisition of land by the NCT, Delhi is legal and valid and did not suffer from any legal infirmities. Hence, this appeal.
4. It is the case of the appellant that throughout the proceedings before the High Court as well as this Court, the appellant has been in continuous physical possession of the land involved in this appeal as it has been protected by various orders of “status quo” by the High Court as well as this Court with respect to the possession of the land in question.
5. Mr. Chandra Uday Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant placed strong reliance upon Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 to substantiate the plea that actual physical possession of land has not been taken by the Land Acquisition Collector even after 5 years being elapsed after the award was passed as on the date of the Act of 2013 which came into force with effect from 01.01.2014. The aforesaid provision is extracted hereunder:-
“24(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the LA Act, where an Award under the said Section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
