LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Vs. B.S. DHILLON

JUDGEMENT

(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. 2916 of 2015 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 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 Land Acquisition Collector and Anr. have preferred the present appeal.

(2.) From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the award under Sec. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1894 ") with respect to the land in question was made as far as back on 19/6/1992. According to the appellants and so stated in the counter before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants that the possession of the land in question was taken on 21/4/2006 and was handed over to the DDA on the spot by preparing the possession proceedings. However, despite the above and relying upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

(3.) Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, there shall not be any deemed lapse under Sec. 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.