Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
VERSUS
Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3073 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 23418 of 2017)
Decided On : 06-05-2022
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Land Acquisition Act,1894 – Section 5-A – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Since original land owner never filed any objections under Section 5-A of Act, purchaser cannot seek relief which was not available even to original land owner – Purchaser has purchased property knowing fully well that vendor has not disputed acquisition proceedings – Amount of compensation was paid on behalf of appellant – Compensation of acquired land paid by appellant cannot lead to lapsing of acquisition – Right which has been lost due to passage of time cannot be revived by virtue of deposit of amount subsequent to orders of High Court – Possession was in fact taken of entire acquired land and compensation was deposited – If appellant had not been able to utilize land on account order of stay of dispossession in various writ petitions filed, that would not be a material fact to return a finding that purchaser continues to be in possession – After Panchanama had been prepared, possession of land owners would be that of a trespasser – Purchaser is not entitled to any declaration of lapsing of acquisition proceedings on the ground that it has purchased land after vesting of land with State and possession has been taken of land and compensation has also been deposited in respect of entire land – Order passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 37, 38, 39, 40, 42 and 44)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 9.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1was allowed and the proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were declared to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Findings of Court:
Order passed by High Court set aside. However, the appellant shall refund the amount of Rs.16,61,774/- to the purchaser, without any interest as such deposit was a voluntary offer to deposit, in accordance with law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 9.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1, For short, the ‘purchaser’, was allowed and the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, For short, the ‘Act’, were declared to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [For short, the ‘2013 Act’]
2. The process of acquisition of land admeasuring 50,000 Bighas situated in 12 villages for the planned development of Delhi started way back in 1980. The intention to acquire the land was published vide notification dated 5.11.1980 in respect of land situated in villages of Tughlakabad, Tigri, Deoli, Khanpur, Said-ul- Ajaib, Neb Sarai, Hauz Khas and Khirki, and vide notification dated 25.11.1980 in respect of the land situated in villages Chattarpur, Satbari Maidangarhi, Sayoorpur and Rajpur Khurd. The declarations under Section 6 of the Act were published on 27.5.1985, 6.6.1985, 7.6.1985 and 26.2.1986 and the award were announced on 20.5.1987 or thereafter.
3. M/s. Satluj Bhatta Co. through its partners, Hereinafter referred to as “Original land owners”, (1) Shri Ishwar Chander Gupta; (2) Shri Hari Chand; and (3) Shri Jai Chand were owners of land admeasuring 58 Bigha 14 Biswa. An agreement to sell was executed by them on 25.9.1990 for the land measuring 28 Bigha 08 Biswa with the purchaser. Thereafter, the purchaser is said to have purchased the land in question vide sale deeds dated 30.8.1991 and 27.2.1991.
4. The purchaser for the first time in written synopsis, filed after the conclusion of the arguments, asserted that the original land owners in respect of land measuring 58 Bigha 14 Biswa situated in revenue estate of Village Sayoorpur, had filed a Writ Petition No. 2736 of 1985 titled as Ishwar Chand Gupta v. Union of India before the High Court. We requisitioned the records of the said writ petition from the High Court. It transpires that the writ petition was filed on or about 30.10.1985 on the ground that the notification dated 20.5.1985 under Section 6 of the Act had been published after a period of more than three years of the notification under Section 4 of the Act on 25.11.1980. There is no assertion that the original land owners had filed any objections under Section 5A of the Act. The said writ petition was dismissed on 2.12.1985 when the following order was passed:
“For the reasons recorded in Civil Writ No. 426 of 1981 titled Muni Lal & Others v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others decided on 15th November, 1983 and Civil Writ 2850 of 1985 titled Hemant Sharma and Others v. Union of India and others decided on 25th November, 1985, the petition is without merit. Dismissed.”
5. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4169 of 1986 filed against the said order was withdrawn on 12.9.1989 with two other petitions. The order passed by this Court reads as thus:
“These three special leave petitions along with several other cases were heard together. They are directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court rejecting the writ petitions of the present petitioners challenging a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated by Mr. Chitale, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the Special Leave Petition No. 1224 of 1986 that on a subsequent writ petition filed by another interested party, the High Court has struck down the subsequent notification issued under Section 6 of the Act and in the circumstances the present special leave petitions have become infructuous and will not be pressed. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents has refuted the proposition. He says that the subsequent judgment of the Delhi High Court may be impugned in this Court and if the challenge is successful, the petitioners who are not parties to that case will not be in a position to take any advantage out
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Right which has been lost due to passage of time cannot be revived by virtue of deposit of amount subsequent to orders of High Court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acquisition proceedings did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as the appellant was prevented from taking possession due to in....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – When acquisition proceedings were subject matter of litigation and because of that authority could not take possession of lands in question and as such not taki....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Period during which interim order passed by Court is/was operative, has to be excluded in computation of five years’ period.
(1) Courts should adjudicate on all issues and give its findings on all issues and not to pronounce judgment only on one of issues.(2) Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – There being delay in pass....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, both the conditions of physical possession and payment of compe....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Se....
Subsequent purchasers cannot challenge land acquisition proceedings, and the lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act depends on the fulfillment of possession....
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
