Delhi Development Authority vs Discover India Tour (P) Ltd. on 13 November, 2021

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Delhi Development Authority vs Discover India Tour (P) Ltd. on 13 November, 2021

Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, C.T. Ravikumar

                                                       1

                                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                   CIVIL APPEAL NO.6837 OF 2021
                             (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19784 of 2018)


                         DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                       APPELLANT(S)

                                                            VERSUS

                         DISCOVER INDIA TOUR (P) LTD.& ORS.                RESPONDENT(S)


                                                  O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.2912 of 2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent(s) came to be allowed and the Court declared the acquisition proceedings concerning the subject land had lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Signature Not VerifiedAct, 2013 (for short, ‘the 2013 Act’). Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2021.11.23 17:11:20 IST Reason: The principal argument of the appellant, which commends to us, is that the High Court decided the 2 writ petition on the basis of decisions which are since over-ruled or explained by the subsequent decisions of this Court including in Shiv Kumar & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.

The core issue canvassed before us is that the respondent(s)/writ petitioner(s) were admittedly subsequent purchaser(s), who in terms of the aforesaid decisions had no locus to maintain writ petition for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

As noted above, since the High Court has decided the writ petition relying on the decisions of this Court which have been subsequently overruled, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and relegate the parties before the High Court to examine all aspects of the matter including in light of the exposition of the Constitution Bench of this Court referred to earlier.

Accordingly, the parties are relegated before the High Court. The remanded writ petition be 3 decided on its own merits in accordance with law. All contentions available to both parties are left open.

The parties to appear before the High Court on 11.01.2022.

The High Court may set down the matter for hearing as per its convenience. However, we request the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the writ petition.

The appeal(s) and pending application(s) stand disposed of in the above terms.

....................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2021.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6857 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.18835/2021) Diary No(s). 17343/2020 HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL & APPELLANT(S) INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

VERSUS KULDEEP SINGH ETC. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP Nos.2616 and 2638 of 2014.

The judgment is founded on the decision of this Court which had been subsequently reversed by the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.

The case of the appellant(s) is that the 5 possession of the land referred to in the writ petition had already been taken much before coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

As noted above, since the High Court has decided the writ petition relying on the decision of this Court which has been subsequently overruled, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and relegate the parties before the High Court to examine all aspects of the matter including in light of the exposition of the Constitution Bench of this Court referred to earlier. We order accordingly.

All contentions available to both parties are left open, to be considered by the High Court on its own merits in accordance with law in the remanded writ petition.

The parties to appear before the High Court on 11.01.2022.

The High Court may set down the matter for hearing as per its convenience. However, we request the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the writ 6 petition.

The appeal(s) and pending application(s) stand disposed of in the above terms.

....................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2021.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6840 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19800/2018) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MAHIPAL SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 31.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.11238 of 2015.

The case of the appellant is that the possession of the land referred to in the writ petition had 8 already been taken and handed over to D.D.A on 03.12.2012, i.e. before the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 coming into force.

All contentions available to both parties are left open, to be considered by the High Court on its own merits in accordance with law in the remanded writ petition.

The parties to appear before the High Court on 11.01.2022.

The High Court may set down the matter for hearing as per its convenience. However, we request the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the writ 9 petition.

The appeal(s) and pending application(s) stand disposed of in the above terms.

....................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2021.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6853 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19814/2018) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SHARDA RAM & ANR RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.7363 of 2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent(s) came to be allowed and the Court declared the acquisition proceedings concerning the subject land had lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the 2013 Act’).

The principal argument of the appellant, which commends to us, is that the High Court decided the 11 writ petition on the basis of decision(s), which are since over-ruled or explained by the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.

The core issue canvassed before us is that the respondent(s)/writ petitioner(s) were admittedly subsequent purchaser(s), who in terms of the aforesaid decision had no locus to maintain writ petition for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

Accordingly, the parties are relegated before the High Court. The remanded writ petition be decided on its own merits in accordance with law.

All contentions available to both parties are left open.

The parties to appear before the High Court on 11.01.2022.

The High Court may set down the matter for hearing as per its convenience. However, we request the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the writ petition.

The appeal(s) and pending application(s) stand disposed of in the above terms.

....................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2021.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6855 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19813/2018) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS PANKAJ SETHI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 02.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.9451/2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent(s) came to be allowed and the Court declared the acquisition proceedings concerning the subject land had lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the 2013 Act’).

The principal argument of the appellant, which commends to us, is that the High Court decided the 14 writ petition on the basis of decision(s), which are since over-ruled or explained by the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.

Accordingly, the parties are relegated before the High Court. The remanded writ petition be decided on its own merits in accordance with law.

All contentions available to both parties are 15 left open.

The parties to appear before the High Court on 11.01.2022.

The High Court may set down the matter for hearing as per its convenience. However, we request the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the writ petition.

The appeal(s) and pending application(s) stand disposed of in the above terms.

....................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2021.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6845 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19989/2018) DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY APPELLANT(S) DISTRICT & ORS.

VERSUS SRI MITHRA REAL RESPONDENT(S) ESTATES PRIVATE LTD. & ANR.

O R D E R Leave granted.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 15.06.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No.710 of 2017.

The High Court declared that the acquisition proceedings referred to in the writ appeal had lapsed in light of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the 2013 Act’).

According to the appellant possession of the 17 land was taken over much before coming into force of the 2013 Act.

In that view of the matter, keeping in mind the exposition of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, it was not open to the High Court to issue declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

From the impugned judgment, however, it is not clear that the High Court was convinced that the possession of the land in question was admittedly taken over by the competent authority.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and relegate the parties before the High Court for reconsideration of the Writ Appeal No.710 of 2017.

All contentions available to both sides are left open.

The parties to appear before the High Court on 11th January, 2022, on which date the Division Bench of the High Court may proceed with the hearing of the Writ Appeal, to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law keeping in mind the exposition of the Constitution Bench of this Court, referred to 18 above.

We request the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the writ petition.

The appeal(s) and pending application(s) stand disposed of in the above terms.

....................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2021.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6850 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19805/2018) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS JOGINDER PAL KAUR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.687/2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent(s) came to be allowed and the Court declared the acquisition proceedings concerning the subject land had lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the 2013 Act’).

The principal argument of the appellant, which commends to us, is that the High Court decided the writ petition on the basis of decision(s) which are already over-ruled or explained by the Constitution 20 Bench decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.

As noted above, since the High Court has decided the writ petition relying on the decision of this Court which has been subsequently overruled, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and relegate the parties before the High Court to examine all aspects of the matter including in light of the exposition of the Constitution Bench of this Court referred to earlier.

Accordingly, the parties are relegated before the High Court. The remanded writ petition be decided on its own merits in accordance with law.

All contentions available to both parties are left open.

The parties to appear before the High Court on 11.01.2022.

The High Court may set down the matter for hearing as per its convenience. However, we request the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the writ petition.

The appeal(s) and pending application(s) stand disposed of in the above terms.

....................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2021.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6856 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19803/2018) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SATISH KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) ORDER Leave granted.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.7045/2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent(s) came to be allowed and the Court declared the acquisition proceedings concerning the subject land had lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the 2013 Act’).

The argument of the appellant, which commends to us, is that the High Court decided the writ petition on the basis of decision(s), which are already over- ruled or explained by the Constitution Bench 23 decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.

The issues canvassed before us are that the possession of the land referred to in the writ petition had already been taken much before coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the respondent(s)/writ petitioner(s) were admittedly subsequent purchaser(s), who in terms of the aforesaid decision had no locus to maintain writ petition for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.

As noted above, since the High Court has decided the writ petition relying on the decisions of this Court which has been subsequently overruled, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and relegate the parties before the High Court to examine all aspects of the matter including in light of the exposition of the Constitution Bench of this Court referred to earlier.

Accordingly, the parties are relegated before the High Court. The remanded writ petition be 24 decided on its own merits in accordance with law. All contentions available to both parties are left open.

The parties to appear before the High Court on 11.01.2022.

The High Court may set down the matter for hearing as per its convenience. However, we request the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the writ petition.

The appeal(s) and pending application(s) stand disposed of in the above terms.

....................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2021.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6846 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19801/2018) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SHYAM VATI DEVI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.9313 of 2016.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment, we find that no clear finding of fact has been recorded on the factum of possession as to whether the possession was symbolic or physical possession. Further, the impugned judgment proceeds on the basis of dictum in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183. That decision stands reversed in 26 light of the exposition of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.

Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and relegate the parties before the High Court to examine all aspects of the matter including in light of the exposition of the Constitution Bench referred to earlier.

All contentions available to both parties are left open.

The parties to appear before the High Court on 11.01.2022.

The High Court may set down the matter for hearing as per its convenience. However, we request the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the writ petition.

The appeal(s) and pending application(s) stand disposed of in the above terms.

....................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2021.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6851 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19808/2018) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DAYA CHAND & ORS RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition © No.8606/2015, whereby the High Court has declared that the acquisition proceedings in question had lapsed.

That view has been taken by the High Court, despite a clear assertion made in the affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector in paragraph 4, that the possession of the disputed land was taken over on 14.07.1987 on the spot by preparing possession proceedings and handed over to the DDA on the spot.

Further, compensation was paid to the recorded 28 owners, namely, Jai Lal, Lal Chand, Sultan and Ganga Devi and that the writ petitioners were claiming through the said recorded owners.

The High Court has not rejected this plea of the authorities, but proceeded to declare that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed merely by referring to the decision of the coordinate Bench.

The legal position has now been settled in the decision of the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129. Keeping that in mind, the view taken by the High Court cannot be countenanced. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the private respondent(s) before the High Court stands dismissed.

Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

....................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2021.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6843 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19842/2018) STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DHARAM SINGH & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 01.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.18662/2016.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment, we find that no clear finding of fact has been recorded on the factum of possession as to whether the possession was symbolic or physical possession. As this aspect has not been dealt with by the High Court, we set aside the impugned judgment and relegate the parties before the High Court for reconsideration of the entire matter afresh keeping in mind the exposition of the Constitution Bench in 30 Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.

The High Court may record a clear finding of fact while dealing with the arguments of both sides and examine the matter including in light of the exposition of the Constitution Bench in Indore Development (supra).

All contentions available to both parties are left open.

The parties to appear before the High Court on 11.01.2022.

The High Court may set down the matter for hearing as per its convenience. However, we request the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the writ petition.

The appeal(s) and pending application(s) stand disposed of in the above terms.

....................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2021.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6849 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19911/2018) LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 08.05.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Land Acquisition No.1818 of 2017.

The matter proceeded before the High Court on the basis that only paper possession has been taken and there was dispute about the compensation amount being paid.

In response, counter affidavit was filed by the authority placing on record the factum of taking paper possession of the subject land. That was not disputed by the writ petitioner and also that 80% of the compensation amount was already received by the 32 land owners. In light of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 the question of declaring the acquisition proceedings had lapsed does not arise.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order which is based on the decisions of this Court subsequently reversed by the Constitution Bench, requires to be set aside.

Hence, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the private respondent(s) before the High Court stands dismissed.

Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

....................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2021.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6852 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 19798/2018) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS INDER PAL & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.© No.1032 of 2016. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment, we find that no clear finding of fact has been recorded on the factum of possession and payment of compensation. Further, the impugned judgment proceeds on the basis of dictum in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183. That decision stands reversed in light of the exposition of the Constitution Bench of 34 this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.

All contentions available to both parties are left open.

The parties to appear before the High Court on 11.01.2022.

The High Court may set down the matter for hearing as per its convenience. However, we request the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the writ petition.

The appeal(s) and pending application(s) stand disposed of in the above terms.

....................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2021.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6854 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19811/2018) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SATBIR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted.

This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.1457 of 2017.

In the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it has been specifically asserted by the authorities that physical possession of the subject land falling in Khasra No. 80 (4-02) was taken on 17.09.2008 on the spot and handed over to the DDA after preparing possession proceeding on the spot. It is further stated that the land has been used for construction of flyover. No rejoinder affidavit was filed before the High Court.

The High Court, however, proceeded merely on the 36 basis of exposition in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183. That decision stands reversed in terms of the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129. Once possession has been taken before the coming into force of the 2013 Act, the question of lapsing of acquisition proceedings does not arise. Hence, this appeal ought to succeed and the writ petition stands dismissed.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Pending applications shall stand disposed of.

....................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2021.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6842 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19868/2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO.6838 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19872/2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO.6839 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19870/2018) CIVIL APPEAL NO.6841 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19867/2018) STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RAM CHANDER & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R Leave granted.

These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.12150/2016, 4816/2014, 5453/2016, 12988/2016 and 12994/2016.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment, we find that no 38 clear finding of fact has been recorded on the factum of possession and payment of compensation.

It was asserted by the acquiring authority that possession of land in question was taken and handed over to Estate Officer, HUDA on the same day when award was announced.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and relegate the parties before the High Court for reconsideration of the entire matter afresh keeping in mind the exposition of the Constitution Bench.

The High Court may record a clear finding of fact while dealing with the arguments of both sides and examine the matter in light of the exposition of the Constitution Bench in Indore Development (supra).

All contentions available to both parties are left open.

The parties to appear before the High Court on 11.01.2022.

The High Court may set down the matter for hearing as per its convenience. However, we request the High Court to expeditiously dispose of the writ petition.

The appeal(s) and pending application(s) stand disposed of in the above terms.

....................,J.

(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 13, 2021.

                                 40

ITEM NO.24     Court 3 (Video Conferencing)     SECTION XIV

               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)    No(s).19784/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-11-2017 in WP(C) No. 2912/2016 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS DISCOVER INDIA TOUR (P) LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 88459/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH Diary No(s). 17343/2020 (IV-B) IA No. 77744/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 77745/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 19800/2018 (XIV) IA No. 87685/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 19814/2018 (XIV) IA No. 94064/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 19813/2018 (XIV) IA No. 93600/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 19989/2018 (XII-A) SLP(C) No. 19805/2018 (XIV) IA No. 88460/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 19803/2018 (XIV) IA No. 94814/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 19840/2018 (IV-B) SLP(C) No. 19801/2018 (XIV) IA No. 88119/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) 41 SLP(C) No. 19808/2018 (XIV) IA No. 92896/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 19788/2018 (XIV) IA No. 92611/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 19842/2018 (IV-B) SLP(C) No. 19843/2018 (IV-B) IA No. 88471/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 88470/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) SLP(C) No. 19911/2018 (XI) SLP(C) No. 19798/2018 (XIV) IA No. 90467/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 19811/2018 (XIV) IA No. 94438/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 19868/2018 (IV-B) IA No. 85577/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 19872/2018 (IV-B) IA No. 85893/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 19870/2018 (IV-B) IA No. 167874/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) SLP(C) No. 19867/2018 (IV-B) IA No. 84939/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 19875/2018 (IV-B) IA No. 85660/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 13-11-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR 42 For Petitioner(s) Mr. Alok Sangwan, Sr. AAG Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anurag Kulharia, Adv. Ms. Diksha Sharma, Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. M. C. Dhingra, AOR Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Adv.

Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, adv. Mr. Prashant Tyagi, Adv. Mr. P. Srinivas Reddy, Adv. M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, AOR Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv. Ms. Pratima Yadav, Adv. Mr. D. Subramanyam, Adv.

Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Udaibir Kochhar, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Gurinder Singh Gill, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.P Nayak, Adv.

Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kuchaliya, Adv. Mr. Aashna Gill, Adv.

Mr. Pratap Singh Gill, Adv. Ms. Bhupinder, Adv.

Ms. Vandana Hooda, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Aditya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Rishikesh, Adv.

Ms. Sweta Rani, AOR Mr. M. Srinivas R. Rao, Adv. Mr. Sarath S Janardanan, Adv. Mrs. Sudha Gupta, AOR Mr. Vinay Garg, AOR 43 Mr. Kundan Kumar Lal, AOR Mr. Ashok Anand, Adv.

Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR Mr. Rajiv Ghawana, Adv. Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Vasudev, Adv.

Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR Mr. S.K. Rout, Adv.

Mr. Prithvi Pal, AOR Mr. Naresh Kumar Nagar, Adv.

Mr. Sanat Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jaswant Singh Rawat, AOR Mr. Ashish Sehrawat, Adv.

Mr. Pardeep Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Devashish Bharuka, AOR Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR (NP) Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR Ms. Shashi Kiran, AOR Ms. Sangeeta Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Arjun Sain, Adv.

Mr. Manoj Jain, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C) No.19788/2018 List this matter 18th November, 2021.

SLP(C) Nos.19840/2018, 19843/2018 and 19875/2018 Issue fresh notice, returnable on 13.12.2021. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. If any matter is unready, appropriate office report be circulated for consideration.

SLP(C) Nos.19784/2018, 19800/2018, 19814/2018, 19813/2018, 19989/2018, 19805/2018, 19803/2018, 19801/2018, 19842/2018, 19798/2018, 19868/2018, 44 19872/2018, 19870/2018, 19867/2018, Diary No.17343/2020 Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeal(s) are disposed of in terms of the signed order(s).

Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

SLP(C) Nos. 19808/2018, 19911/2018 and 19811/2018, Leave granted.

The appeal(s) are allowed in terms of the signed order(s).

Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.





 (NEETU KHAJURIA)                      (VIDYA NEGI)
   COURT MASTER                        COURT MASTER

(Signed orders are placed on the file.)

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Delhi Development Authority vs Discover India Tour (P) Ltd. on 13 November, 2021

Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, C.T. Ravikumar