Government of NCT of Delhi vs Manish

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 105

M. R. SHAH
Government of NCT of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Manish – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Bhatia, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Manish Vashist, Adv. Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv. Ms. Abhivyakti Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Garg, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR

JUDGMENT :

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. 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.

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 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document