GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. JAI PAL

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. 4776 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1894 ") with regard 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 and Ors. have preferred the present appeal.

(2.) From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants herein - original respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken on 11/7/2008. However, thereafter without going into the controversy of physical possession, 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 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.

(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 and more particularly, when the appellants herein - original respondents claimed that the possession of the land in question was taken on 11/7/2008, 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. There shall not be any deemed lapse of the acquisition with respect to the land in question. The original writ petition before the High Court stands dismissed.