Delve into the nuanced legal analysis by the court regarding land acquisition proceedings lapsing, possession issues, and compensation disputes. Understanding the implications of Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and the significance of Section 6 declarations sets the stage for a detailed examination of the case.
Facts
- The writ petition filed by respondent No 1 was allowed by the High Court of Delhi, declaring the land acquisition proceedings to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- The possession of certain Khasra numbers was never taken by the revenue authorities, indicating that the physical possession remained with the original landowners.
- The land measuring 58 Bigha 14 Biswa was owned by M/s. Satluj Bhatta Co. through its partners.
- The High Court had previously dealt with challenges to the acquisition process through various writ petitions.
- Special Leave Petition No 4642 of 2006 filed against the judgment was dismissed on 8.2.2010.
- The High Court in a judgment on 15.5.1989 held that the action of taking possession from the landowners was not sustainable.
- The benefit of the judgment was extended to all landowners as the notification under Section 6 of the Act was quashed.
- Union of India sought a review of the order passed in all matters, leading to further considerations and dismissals by the Court.
- Court decisions related to different appeals and petitions were made over time, addressing various aspects of land acquisition and possession issues.
Also Read: Landmark Judgment on Compensation for Fatal Accident
Arguments
- The purchaser claimed a Mandamus for vacant and peaceful possession of the land measuring 28 Bigha 8 Biswa.
- Appellant argued against the purchaser’s right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings citing past judgments.
- Appellant stated that acquisition proceedings had attained finality, so lapsing was not possible under the Act.
- High Court confirmed refund of a certain amount by the original landowner but it was not encashed.
- Purchaser offered to deposit the refunded amount twice over with interest as per High Court’s direction.
- High Court accepted the offer and ruled that proceedings had lapsed.
- Purchaser filed additional documents before the Court to support the claim.
- Land was divided into Part A and Part B, with different compensation payment statuses.
- The High Court directed the purchaser to pay the amount of Rs. 16,61,774/- in the absence of proof of encashment of the cheque.
- The amount of Rs. 16,61,774/- stands paid as per the High Court’s order.
- Compensation for the land in question had not been paid in accordance with the law.
- Possession has not been taken for Part B land, and compensation has not been paid for it.
Also Read: Judicial Review of Search and Seizure Authorization
Analysis
- The purchaser cannot claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings based on a recent larger Bench judgment.
- Judgments like Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors. and State of Haryana & Anr. v. Devander Sagar & Ors. have established the precedence of certain judgments over others.
- Notification under Section 6 of the Act cannot be set aside without individualized justice for each petitioner.
- Section 6 declaration cannot be invalidated in its entirety unless done so specifically by the Court.
- The examination of whether Section 6 declaration stands quashed entirely, even when it was quashed only for specific landowners in a case, was conducted.
Also Read: Land Acquisition Compensation Legal Analysis
Decision
- The order passed by the High Court is set aside.
- The appellant is required to refund the amount of Rs.16,61,774/- to the purchaser.
- The refund should be made without any interest as the deposit was voluntary.
- The appeal is allowed based on the above points.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. GODFREY PHILLIPS (I) LTD. (2022 INSC 527)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003073-003073 / 2022
