Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Dinesh Kkumar

Govt. of NCT Delhi & Anr. …Appellant(s)

Versus

Dinesh Kumar & Anr. …Respondent(s)

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.

4954 of 2016, by which, the High Court has allowed

the said writ petition and has declared that the

acquisition with respect to the land in question is

Signature Not Verified deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2023.04.28 16:27:29 IST Reason: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Page 1 of 6 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”),

the Govt. of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present

appeal.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant(s) has submitted that in the present case

the possession of the disputed land in question was

taken on 31.12.2013 and therefore, as per the law

laid-down by this Court in the case of Indore

Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.,

reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 there shall not be

any deemed lapse of acquisition under Section

24(2) of the Act, 2013.

2.1 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the original writ petitioner – respondent No.

1 herein has submitted that the actual/physical

possession is with the original writ petitioner and

Page 2 of 6 only a paper possession was taken. It is submitted

that even the possession is alleged to be taken on

31.12.2013 and before that the Act, 2013 has come

into effect. It is submitted that it is rightly observed

and held by the High Court that as neither the

compensation was paid nor the possession was

taken, there shall be deemed lapse of acquisition

under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

3. Having gone through the impugned judgment and

order passed by the High Court, it appears that it

was the specific case on behalf of the appellants

that the possession of the land in question was

taken over on 31.12.2013. The Act, 2013 has come

into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014. Therefore, the date on

which the Act, 2013 came into force the possession

was already taken over.

Page 3 of 6 3.1 The submission on behalf of respondent No. 1 –

original writ petitioner that only a paper possession

was taken and actual/physical possession has not

been taken is concerned, it is required to be noted

that the possession of the land in question is taken

over by drawing the punchnama which is held to be

legal mode of taking the possession as per the

decision of this Court in the case of Indore

Development Authority (supra). Therefore, we

have to proceed on the premise that the possession

of land in question was taken over. Even the High

Court has also proceeded further with the matter not

disputing that the possession of the land in question

was taken on 31.12.2013. However, thereafter, on

the ground that no compensation has been

paid/tendered to the original writ petitioner, thus,

one of the two ingredients of Section 24(2) of the

Act, 2013 is met, the High Court has declared that

Page 4 of 6 the acquisition with respect to the land in question is

deemed to have lapsed. The aforesaid reasoning

and the findings given by the High Court is just

contrary to the law laid -down by this Court in the

case of Indore Development Authority (supra). In

the case of Indore Development Authority

(supra), it is observed and held that for deemed

lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin

conditions of not taking possession and not

tendering/paying the compensation are required to

be satisfied. Therefore, if one of the two ingredients

of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is not met, there

shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition under

Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

4. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case

of Indore Development Authority (supra) to the

facts of the case on hand, the judgment and order

passed by the High Court declaring that the

Page 5 of 6 acquisition with respect to the land in question is

deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable and the

same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is

accordingly, quashed and set aside. Present appeal

is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. APRIL 28, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

Page 6 of 6