DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAMBIR

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. 5441 of 2017 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 Section 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 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the LAC/DDA before the High Court and so stated in the counter filed that the possession of the land in question was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department in the year 2007. 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 declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed on the ground that the compensation was not tendered to the original landowners as per Section 31 of the Act, 1894. However, the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:-

(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, considering the fact that the possession of the land in question was taken over in the year 2007 by drawing the panchnama / possession report and was handed over to the beneficiary department, 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,