Case title:
Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr vs Khajan Singh and Anr
Date of Order:
20th January, 2023
Bench:
Justice M R Shah and Justice C T RaviKumar
Parties:
Petitioner: Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr
Defendant: Khajan Singh and Anr
Facts:
The petitioner being resentful and unhappy with the contested decision and judgement made by the High Court of Delhi in New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 6719 of 2015, which allowed the aforementioned writ petition and has ruled that the Land Acquisition Act of 1894's acquisition procedures are now in effect.
The Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. have filed the current appeal with regard to the land in question, which is deemed to have expired under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2013").
According to the High Court's contested judgement and order, it appears that the High Court cited this Court's earlier ruling in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others while making its decision (2014).
It has been noted that even if the disputed property's possession was transferred on the dates specified in the returns and counter affidavit, the acquisition is presumed to have expired because no compensation was offered.
As a result, neither the High Court nor the original writ petitioners—original landowners—have disputed that the dispossessed occurred on the dates specified in the returns or counter affidavit. The initial writ petitioners explicitly acknowledged their dispossessed status even in the writ petition.
However, they asserted that the acquisition had lapsed solely because the compensation had not been paid or tendered, relying on the court's decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which the Constitution Bench of this court specifically overruled in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In articles 365 and 366, this Court's Constitution Bench.
Issues Raised:
An appeal was filed by the petitioner with regards to land whether it was deemed to have expired under section 24(2) of the act?
Judgment Analysis:
According to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Indore Development Authority (above), two requirements must be met in order for an acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, to expire: possession must not have been taken, and compensation must not have been offered. It is noted and decided that even if one of the requirements is not met, Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not apply in that situation either.
In the current instance, it is true that the possession of the property in question was acquired on the various dates listed in the returns and counter affidavits submitted to the High Court.
The contested judgement and order issued by the High Court is not supportable in light of the aforementioned and when applied to the facts of the case at hand in accordance with the law established by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), and as such, it is quashed and set aside.
As a result, the current appeal is accepted. No charges. Additionally, any pending applications are dismissed.
Conclusion:
In this case, the honourable Supreme Court of India considered the ruling case of Indore Development Authority. On the basis of above considered case law the appeal filled by the petitioner was rejected and dismissed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
