DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY … APPELLANT
VERSUS
JAGAN SINGH & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4335 OF 2023
In the Interlocutory Application No. 37319 of 2022, the Supreme Court of India considered a case related to the acquisition of lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The first respondent had filed a Writ Petition challenging the acquisition proceedings, and the High Court had ruled in favor of the first respondent, declaring the acquisition as lapsed and directing the appellant to pay compensation in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the "2013 Act").
However, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors., had overruled the previous decisions (Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr., + Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of TamilNadu & Ors.) and held that the acquisition should not be considered as lapsed under the 2013 Act if the physical possession of the land has been taken or compensation has been paid. In this case, it was established that the possession of the acquired land had been taken over on 19th January 2006, rendering Sub Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act inapplicable.
The main question before the court was whether the delay of 1231 days in approaching the court should be condoned. The acquired land had been utilized for a public purpose by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) for its car maintenance depot, and photographs confirming this were submitted to the court. Considering the unique circumstances of the case and the fact that the acquired land had already been put to public use, the court adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach and condoned the delay.
The court held that the first respondent was not entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act, as the acquisition under the 1894 Act remained valid. However, the first respondent was entitled to receive compensation already determined under the award made under the 1894 Act.
Additionally, the court observed that a part of the acquired land, specifically the pavement abutting the metro depot, had been occupied by unauthorized vendors. The court directed the appellant and concerned authorities to take necessary action to rectify this and ensure the proper use of the land.
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and order were set aside. The writ petition filed by the first respondent before the High Court stood dismissed. The appellant was directed to pay costs of ₹50,000 to the first respondent, and if the compensation determined under the 1894 Act had not been paid, it was to be paid within a month. The court emphasized the importance of the observations made regarding the unauthorized occupation of the acquired land and urged the appellant and authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with the law.
July 13, 2023.