Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ.
Hardwari Lal Rana & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 3270 of 2015
Decided On : 08-04-2022
Land Acquisition - Writ of Certiorari - Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - [Pune Municipal Corporation and anr. v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183, Indore Development authority vs. Manohar Lal & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 act and its interpretation in light of the judgments in Pune Municipal Corporation and Indore Development authority, and how it influenced the decision to dismiss the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash an impugned award and declaration under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court granted the benefit to the petitioners in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 act, but the respondent challenged the judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and directed the respondent to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh within a year.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed in respect of the subject land and dismissed the petition. The doctrine of merger did not apply, and the judgment in Civil appeal No.12075/2016 was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development (supra).
Issues: The issues revolved around the possession of the land, applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 act, and the impact of relevant judgments on the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 act as per the judgments in Pune Municipal Corporation and Indore Development authority, and found that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court's order was uploaded on the website.
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J. - The present petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned award No.8/91-92 dated 6th February, 1992 pursuant to the Notification No.F11(1)86-L&B/(2) dated 7th February, 1990 under Section 4 of the Land acquisition act, 1894 (in short 'the act'). That the declaration under Section 6 of the act as also the award no.8/91-92 dated 6th February, 1992 has lapsed in respect of Khasra No.51/2 measuring 1 bigha Village Siraspur, Delhi-110042. Directions are also sought not to dispossess the petitioners from the said land measuring 1 bigha Village Siraspur, Delhi-110042.
2. In the writ petition, the petitioners have impleaded Union of India, Delhi Development authority and the Government of NCT of Delhi as respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively.
3. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide the judgment dated 24th May, 2016 granting the benefit to the petitioners 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 2013 act') which came into effect on 1st January, 2014 in terms of the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and anr. v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183. a declaration in respect of the acquisition proceedings initiated under the act in respect of the subject land was issued to be deemed to be lapsed.
4. Challenging the judgment of this Court dated 24th May, 2016, DDa which was the respondent no.2 in the writ petition filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36627/2016 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where leave was granted and the Civil appeal No.12075/2016 was dismissed vide the judgment dated 14th December, 2016, as under:
'1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The issue, in principle, is covered against the appellant by judgments in Civil appeal No. 8477 of 2016 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8467 of 2015 and Civil appeal No. 5811 of 2015 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21545 of 2015.
4. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement act, 2013 for initiation of the acquisition proceedings afresh.
6. We make it clear that in case no fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the said period of one year from today by issuing a Notification under Section 11 of the act, the appellant, if in possession, shall return the physical possession of the land to the owner.
7. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
8. No costs.'
5. aggrieved by the order dated 14th December, 2016, DDa filed a review petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on the ground of delay, vide order dated 3rd May, 2021. In the meantime, Government of NCT of Delhi also filed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) 4004/2022 wherein leave was granted and was registered as Civil appeal No.1746/2022 and the following order dated 4th March, 2022 was passed:
'Leave granted.
This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 24.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.3270 of 2015, whereby the High Court declared the acquisition proceedings in respect of subject land as lapsed.
From the judgment under appeal, it is noticed that the High Court adverted to the fact asserted by the appellant that possession of the subject land was taken on 18.09.2004. The High Court then noted that the respondents-land owners disputed that factual assertion and yet proceeded to observe that without going into the controversy of the physical possession, the relief as claimed by the respondent(s) deserve to be granted. This, in our opinion, is a tenuous approach adopted by the High Court. Form it is necessary to first answer the foundation
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and R....
Possession taken under land acquisition negates the lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, reaffirming that acquisition processes must adhere to statutory guidelines of compensatio....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 24(2) of the Fair Compensation Act, the acquisition proceedings would lapse if the possession of the land was not taken and comp....
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.
Once possession is taken by the State after acquisition, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. The deposit of compensation in the Government Treasury prior to the enforcement of the....
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
