GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. BHAGRATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dtd. 29/11/2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 12139 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the private respondent no.1 herein - original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under 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 has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant/LAC before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and others - original respondents that the award with respect to the land in question was declared on 19/6/1992 and the actual vacant physical possession of the subject land was taken on 21/3/2007, out of which the original writ petitioner is claiming 1/12th share. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant that the possession was handed over to the DDA after preparing possession proceedings on the spot. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant/LAC that the original writ petitioner is not the recorded owner and the recorded owner never came forward to receive any compensation and hence the same is lying unpaid. Despite the above and even after observing that the land in question was taken over thereafter 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, the High Court has erred in keeping the question of title of the subject land open to be decided in the appropriate court of jurisdiction, has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed when the compensation had not been paid.

(3.) In view of the above and applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.