O R D E R

% 28.08.2024

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under :-

“i. Issue an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) declaring the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of the land of the petitioner comprising in Khasra No. 21//5/2 (0-14) and 15/1 (0-12) total ad-measuring 1 bigha 06 biswas (to the extent of ½ share), situated in the revenue estate of Village- Bamnoli, District- South-West, New Delhi initiated vide notification bearing NO. F.9 (50) / 2004 / L&B / LA /13211 dated 04.11.2004 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and all subsequent proceedings to have lapsed in view of section 24 (2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013;

ii. Pass any further order/s that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. The petitioner had succeeded in the present petition by a judgment dated 02.08.2016, whereby, this Court had granted the relief as sought, inter alia, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. : (2014)

3 SCC 183.

3. The DDA had preferred a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the said decision (converted into Civil Appeal No.7963/2022). The said appeal was allowed and the judgment dated 02.08.2016 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to this Court to consider the same in light of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. : (2020) 8 SCC 129. The present petition is listed before this Court pursuant to the said order.

4. However, it is pointed out that the Government of NCT of Delhi had also preferred an SLP against the judgment dated 02.08.2016 passed in this matter. The said SLP was allowed and it was converted into Civil Appeal No.740/2023. The said appeal was subsequently allowed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 09.02.2023. Paragraph 4 of the said judgment is relevant and the same reads as under :-

“4. In view of the above and applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and when it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and original respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken on 14.09.2007, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.”

5. As is apparent from the above, the Supreme Court had noted that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 14.09.2007 and therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (supra), the acquisition proceedings of the subject land had not lapsed.

6. The said decision concludes the controversy involved in the present petition. Therefore, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition and the same is accordingly disposed of.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he seeks to avail appropriate remedy before the Supreme Court.

8. Needless to say, if any further orders are passed by the Supreme Court pursuant to any proceedings that may be initiated by the petitioner, this Court will be bound to follow the same.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J SACHIN DATTA, J AUGUST 28, 2024 r