IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022

(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. of 2022)

(@ Diary No. 24608/2022)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

HARINDER KAUSHIK & ORS. ….RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 24-01-2017 passed by the High

Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.

9629/2015, by which the High Court has allowed the said

writ petition and has declared the acquisition with

respect to the land in question as lapsed under Section

24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013 (for short `the 2013 Act’), the Delhi Development

Authority has preferred the present appeal.

Form the impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court, it appears that while declaring the

acquisition in question lapsed under Section 24(2) of the

2013 Act, the High Court has relied upon the decision of

this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation &

Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC

contd..

Digitally signed by

NIRMALA NEGI

Date: 2022.10.22

14:41:57 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

- 2 -

183. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune

Municipal Corporation (supra) has been subsequently over-

ruled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court

in the case of

Indore Development Authority

vs.

Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129.

In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court declaring that the

acquisition with respect to land in question has been

lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is

unsustainable and the High Court has to take a fresh call

considering the decision of this Court in the case of

Indore Development Authority (supra).

In view of the above and for the reasons stated

hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order passed by

the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The

matter is remanded to the High Court to decide and

dispose of the Writ Petition afresh in accordance with

law and on its own merits relying upon the decision of

this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority

(supra) and the subsequent decisions of this Court on the

point.

The present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

………………………………………J.

[M.R. SHAH]

……………………………………J.

[M.M. SUNDRESH]

NEW DELHI

OCTOBER 17, 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7588 OF 2022

(Arising out of SLP (C) 18601/2022

@ D. No. 24751 of 2022)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s)

VERSUS

ABIDA SHAMIM AND & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court, allowing the writ petition preferred by the

defendants/original writ petitioners and declaring that the

acquisition with respect to the land in question has lapsed under

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for

short the ‘2013 Act’), the Delhi Development Authority [DDA] has

preferred the present Appeal.

Before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of

the DDA that the possession of the land in question was already

taken over long back. However, by the impugned judgment and order

Contd..

-

2 -

and without going into the controversy of the physical

possession, the High Court, relying upon the decision of this Court

in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Har