[2022] 15 S.C.R. 686

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
v.
SHIV DUTT SHARMA AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8198 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 24, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –
High Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
Ors. and gave a specific finding that the possession of the subject
land was taken, however compensation was not paid, therefore,
declared the acquisition with respect to the land in question has
lapsed u/s. 24(2) of the Act of 2013 – Held: The case relied on by
High Court has been overruled by the subsequent decision in Indore
Development authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. in which the Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court held that in case possession has been
taken and compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse –
Therefore, judgment of the High Court set aside – Appeals allowed.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
1 SCR 783 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 3
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 3.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8198
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 1870 of 2016.
With
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 686
686

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
687
Civil Appeal No. 8248 of 2022.
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander, Ms. Diksha Narula, Manish
K. Bishnoi, Nirmal Prasad, Ms. Jasleen Chahal, Nishit Agrawal, Ishaan
Sharma, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
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. 1870 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition preferred by the respondent No.1 herein and has declared that
the acquisition with respect to the land in question has 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 Government of NCT of Delhi as well as
the Land Acquisition Collector have preferred the present appeals.
2. We have heard Ms. Astha Tyagi and Shri Nishit Agrawal,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants and
Shri Manish K. Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.1.
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while passing the
impugned judgment and order, the High Court has relied 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
and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question
has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the compensation
has not been paid/tendered to the original writ petitioner. However, there
is a specific finding given by the High Court that the possession of the
subject land has been taken over, however, the compensation has not
been paid to the recorded owner.
3.1 It is the case on behalf of the respondent No.1 that the actual
possession of the land in question has not been taken over as the land in
question is occupied by the encroachers and that the area in question is
known as ‘Sanjay Mohalla’. However, it is required to be noted and as
observed hereinabove, in paragraph 8, the High Court has specifically
observed that there is a categorical assertion made in the counter affidavit
filed by the Land Acquisition Collector that the possession of the subject
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. SHIV DUTT SHARMA
AND ANR.

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[20

…