MANU/SC/0986/2016

True Court CopyTM English

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5811 of 2015 and Civil Appeal No. 8857 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 28304 of 2015)

Decided On: 09.09.2016

Appellants: Delhi Development Authority Vs. Respondent: Sukhbir Singh and Ors.*

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman

JUDGMENT

Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.

1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(C) No. 28304 of 2015.

2. These two appeals revisit the question of the correct construction of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act"). We are constrained to observe that we are hearing these matters despite the fact that the law has been settled in Pune Municipal Corporation v. H.M. Solanki MANU/SC/0055/2014 : 2014(3) SCC 183, which is now stare decisis in that it has been followed in a large number of judgments1.

3. The facts of the present case are as follows. A Notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 24th October, 1961, stating that the public purpose for acquisition was the planned development of Delhi. This Notification covered large tracts of land in and around Delhi. In this case, we are concerned with 33 bighas and 1 biswa of land in the Vasant Kunj area of New Delhi. This Section 4 Notification was followed by a Notification Under Section 6 dated 4th January, 1969, which in turn, was followed by notices issued Under Section 9 on 26th April, 1983. An award relating to the aforesaid land was then made by the Land Acquisition Collector, New Delhi, only on 12th December, 1997. Possession of the said land, being an open piece of land, was taken by a Panchnama dated 27th January, 2000. An affidavit that has been filed by the Commissioner, Land Management, Delhi Development Authority in this Court, pursuant to an order of this Court dated 17th April, 2015, discloses that the requisite compensation for taking over the said land was deposited by the DDA with the Land Acquisition Collector only in the year 2002. The said affidavit goes on to state that since the land had been sold to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the present case, there was a dispute as to who would receive compensation and that, therefore, compensation could neither be paid nor tendered.

4. On the eve of the coming into force of the 2013 Act (on 1st January, 2014), an application styled as a Petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was made by the Land Acquisition Collector in the High Court of Delhi on 27th December, 2013, requesting the High Court of Delhi to accept cheques towards compensation amounts under the award dated 12th December, 1997, stating that non-deposit of compensation on or before 31st December, 2013 would adversely affect the acquisition proceedings inasmuch as the proceedings might lapse in view of the fact that the 2013 Act has been notified to take effect from 1st January, 2014. An order dated 30th December, 2013 was passed by the High Court on this application stating that the petition stands disposed of, reco........