CAUSE TITLE:
Delhi Development Authority Versus Narvada Devi and Ors.
DATE OF ORDER:
09.02.2023
JUDGE(S):
M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Delhi Development Authority
Respondent: Narvada Devi and Ors.
BRIEF FACTS
- Respondent No. 1 in this case feels unfairly treated and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order issued by the High Court of Delhi in New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 3383 of 2016, by which the High Court granted the aforementioned writ petition and declared that the acquisition concerning the subject land is deemed to have expired under Section (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Development Act.
- Respondent No. 1 - original writ petitioner - sought a declaration from the High Court that, by Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the acquisition proceedings about land measuring 504 square yards out of Khasra No. 49/14 in the vicinity of Village Pehladpur Bangar, National Capital Territory of Delhi, are deemed to have expired because neither actual possession of the subject land has been taken nor compensation has been offered to the petitioner
- It was argued before the High Court on behalf of the appellant, DDA, that as a result, the payment of compensation in respect of the award, in the amount of Rs. 80,40,76,004/-, was made to the L & B Department, GNCTD by check dated 09.08.2005. It was also the case on behalf of the DDA that the land measuring area 457 Bigha 08 Biswa, Village Pehladpur Bangar, is in the possession of the DDA but that the remaining area is in illegal occupation in the form of homes, factories, Katha Jat, along with boundary walls. The DDA has taken steps to remove these structures, but on and off, land speculators encroach upon the DDA land.
- Additionally, it was argued on behalf of the appellant DDA that the initial writ petitioner had trespassed on government property while claiming to be the owner.
QUESTIONS RAISED
Is the purchase in question judged to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The High Court's decision runs counter to this Court's Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Constitution Bench of this Court made the observations
- Using the law established by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (above) and the position stated by the DDA in the reply filed before the High Court, the High Court's impugned verdict and order is unsustainable.
- At this point, it should be highlighted that the High Court was aware that the actual physical possession could not be obtained due to illegal occupation by the encroachers. Even though the High Court approved the declaration that the acquisition proceedings concerning the subject properties are deemed to have lapsed, the High Court noted that the original writ petitioner would only be entitled to compensation under the Act of 2013.
- As previously stated and held, the original writ petitioner is not entitled to the remedy of declaring the acquisition proceedings lapsed. Once that is shown, there is no need to pay any compensation to the original writ petitioner by the Act of 2013. Under the circumstances, the High Court's impugned judgment and order are also untenable.
- In light of the foregoing and for the reasons described above, the current appeal is successful. The High Court's contested decision and order are hereby overturned and set aside
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
