DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJAN SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dtd. 30/8/2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 1034/2015, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the private respondents herein - original writ petitioners and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1894) in respect of the subject lands are deemed to have lapsed under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2013), Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Government of NCT of Delhi have preferred the present appeals.

(2.) Private respondent No.1 and 2 herein ­ original writ petitioners filed the writ petition before the High Court for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 in respect of the subject lands are deemed to have lapsed under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 24 of the Act, 2013. It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners before the High Court that as the possession of the land in question is with them and no compensation has been paid, the land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed. Heavy reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors, (2014) 3 SCC 183 .

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DDA has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has materially erred in declaring that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 24 of the Act, 2013.