GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dtd. 14/3/2016 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1178 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2013"), the Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. have preferred the present appeal.

(2.) From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even from the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector - GNCTD that the lands in question of Village Molarband were acquired vide Notification under Sec. 4 dtd. 4/4/1964, award was declared by the LAC on 19/10/1981 and the possession of the land falling in subject Khasra Nos. 154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (4-12) was taken on 10/4/1997 after preparing the possession proceeding on the spot and the same was handed over to the beneficiary department, i.e., DDA immediately. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it was stated as under:-

(3.) Despite the above and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground that the compensation has not been paid, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of the Act, 2013. No finding is given by the High Court with respect to the case on behalf of the LAC that the possession of the disputed lands in question was taken over on 10/4/1997 and was handed over to the beneficiary department, i.e., DDA immediately. Even from the averment in para (I) in the writ petition, it was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the possession of the land comprising of Khasra Nos. 154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (4-12) is liable to be returned to the petitioners as the entire land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed. Meaning thereby, the original writ petitioners admitted that they were not in possession, otherwise they would not have asked for return of the possession. Be that it may, the LAC had produced on record the possession proceedings, which had sufficient compliance as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.