DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. JAGAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interlocutory Application No.37319 of 2022

(2.) The first respondent filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Delhi for questioning the acquisition of the lands subject matter of the Writ Petition. The acquisition was under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act'). The notification under sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 4 of the 1894 Act was issued on 23/6/1989, which culminated in an award under Sec. 11 of the 1894 Act, which was made on 18/6/1992. In the meanwhile, in the year 1990, the first respondent filed a Writ Petition challenging the acquisition proceedings, which was dismissed on 20/5/2005. On 19/1/2006, the appellant took over possession of the acquired land. With effect from 1/1/2014, the 1894 Act was repealed and the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the 2013 Act') were brought into force. On 25/5/2015, the first respondent filed a Writ Petition contending that in view of sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 24 of the 2013 Act, the acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed. By the impugned judgment and order dtd. 11/8/2016, by relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors.(2014) 3 SCC 183 the High Court held that sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 24 of the 2013 Act will apply as the compensation has not been paid to the first respondent although physical possession of the acquired land has been taken over by the appellant. The High Court, however, directed the appellant to pay compensation to the first respondent in accordance with the 2013 Act.

(3.) On 6/3/2020, a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.,(2020) 8 SCC 129 expressly overruled its earlier decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr,(2014) 3 SCC 183 and all other decisions based on the said decision. It was held by the Constitution Bench that another decision of this Court in the case of Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.,(2015) 3 SCC 353 was not correct. Even this decision was relied upon in the impugned judgment.