Summary
Land in village Garhi Mendu, Delhi, was notified in 1989 and covered by an award in 1992. Possession was taken by possession proceedings on 25.01.2000 and handed to the DDA. The department's case was that the recorded owner was the Gaon Sabha, not the writ petitioner, who claimed through a bhumidar. The Delhi High Court nevertheless declared that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court set the declaration aside and dismissed the writ petition. The High Court had erred in entertaining the petition without considering the petitioner's title, and possession had been taken, which rules out lapse under Indore Development Authority.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where possession was taken in 2000, and whether a writ petitioner whose title was disputed, the recorded owner being the Gaon Sabha, could seek such a declaration.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Applying Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation, possession taken by possession proceedings on the spot precludes lapse. (¶¶ 2.2, 4)
- Sections 4 and 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The notifications of 23.06.1989 and 20.06.1990 for planned development of Delhi were followed by Award No. 13/92-93 dated 19.06.1992. (¶ 2.1)
Held
- Without considering the writ petitioner's title, when the department's case was that the recorded owner was the Gaon Sabha and possession had been taken by drawing possession proceedings on the spot, the High Court committed a serious error in entertaining the writ petition and declaring lapse. (¶¶ 2.1, 3)
- In any case, the High Court's reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation, overruled in Indore Development Authority, renders the declaration unsustainable. (¶¶ 2.2, 4)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 399 of 2023 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 30.11.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 12145 of 2015 quashed and set aside and the writ petition dismissed; no costs.