GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. SUBHASH GUPTA

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. 2458 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein - original writ petitioner and has declared that the land 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 Govt. of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even so stated in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it appears that the possession of the land in question could not be taken because of the operation of the stay order in Writ Petition (C) No. 14129 of 2005 and the same came to be continued by this Court till 11/2/2015. Therefore, there was a stay operating against the taking over of the possession even on the day on which the Act, 2013 came into force. However, despite the above and relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Jagjit Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 2806 of 2004 and 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 allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Sec. 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the physical possession of the subject land was not taken and the compensation has not been paid.

(3.) The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order and the decision of the High Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh and Ors. (supra), which has also been relied upon by the High Court are just contrary to the Constitution Bench decision 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:-