LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR Vs. JAI PRAKASH TYAGI

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. 2198 of 2015, by which, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the subject lands in question comprised in Khasra Nos. 35/2/2 (6-04), 36/2/2 (4-13) and 40/2/2 (5-01) total measuring 15 bighas 18 biswa situated in revenue estate of village Wazirabad are 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 Land Acquisition Collector, New Delhi has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the LAC (Land Acquisition Collector) before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the LAC that the possession of Khasra No. 35/2/2 measuring 6 bighas 04 biswa was taken over on 22/9/1997; as regards Khasra No. 36/2/2 measuring 4 bighas 13 biswa possession was taken over in respect of 3 bighas of land on 22/9/1997, however, the possession of 1 bigha 13 biswa out of that Khasra could not be taken and so far as Khasra No. 40/2/2 is concerned, the possession was not taken over. It was the case on behalf of the LAC that the possession with respect to some portion of the lands could not be taken over due to stay in writ petitions Nos. 2506/1982 and 3631/1982. Despite the above and without going into the controversy of physical possession, mainly relying upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, 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.

(3.) The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) which has been heavily relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and in paragraphs 365 and 366, this Court has observed and held as under: - "365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412], the aspect with respect to the proviso to Sec. 24(2) and whether "or " has to be read as "nor " or as "and " was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment.