Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Delhi Development Authority vs Ravinder Kumar on 20 March, 2023
Bench: M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
1
33.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1812 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5510/2023)
(@ D. No. 23569/2022)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAVINDER KUMAR AND ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Though served, none has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent No.1-original writ petitioner.
2. Delay condoned
3. Leave granted.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 10211 of 2016, by which the High Court has allowed the said Writ Petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect 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 “the 2013 Act”), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal. Signature Not Verified
5. Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.03.24 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court 16:44:54 IST Reason:
and even from the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the 2 appellant(s)-original respondent(s) that the possession of the subject land in question was taken over by the Government of NCT of Delhi through the LAC on 13.10.2006 and handed over the same to the DDA on the same day. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, it was the case before the High Court on behalf of the appellant(s)-original respondent(s) that the same could not be paid due to personal reasons of the original writ petitioner as one Attar Singh raised objections against release of compensation to the appellant(s).
6. Despite the above, the High Court has observed in para 6 of the impugned judgment and order that reading of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC and DDA makes it abundantly clear that “neither the physical possession of the subject land has been taken over nor the compensation has been paid to the appellant”. The aforesaid finding given by the High Court is just contrary to the counter affidavit filed by the LAC/DDA. On what basis and/or material, the High Court came to the conclusion that the physical possession of the subject land is not taken is not forthcoming. Nothing is on record that any rejoinder to the counter has been filed on behalf of the original writ petitioner.
7. Under the circumstances, once possession of the disputed land in question was taken over, as far back as on 13.10.2006, and was handed over to the DDA, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as observed and held by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129.
3
8. In that view of the matter, 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.
The present appeal is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.
...........................J (M.R. SHAH) ...........................J (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) New Delhi;
March 20, 2023
4
ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Leave Petition (C) D. No(s). 23569/2023
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RAVINDER KUMAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.174306/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.174309/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.174310/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.174307/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS) Date : 20-03-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Abhishekaran Roy, Adv.
Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv.
Mrs. Sakshi Kakkr, Adv.
Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Though served, none has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent No.1-original writ petitioner.
Delay condoned Leave granted.
The present appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)