The Supreme Court has expressed dissatisfaction with vendors encroaching on the pavement adjacent to a metro train depot, which was built on land acquired for public purposes. In a verdict issued by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, the court emphasized that the pavement should be used solely for pedestrian movement and cannot be utilized for any other purpose.
Brief Facts:
The Supreme Court's observations were made in response to an appeal filed by the DDA concerning the Kalindi Kunj metro depot land acquisition. The case originated from a writ petition filed in May 2015 by Jagan Singh, who argued that the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act since he had not received compensation despite the DDA taking possession of the land. The Delhi High Court, in its August 11, 2016 judgment, ruled in favour of Singh, stating that the compensation should be paid in accordance with the 2013 Act. However, the Supreme Court set aside this judgment and directed the DDA to pay costs amounting to INR 50,000 to Singh within one month.
Contentions of the Parties:
Delhi Development Authority (Appellant):
The appellant argued that the acquired land has already been utilized for public purposes and, therefore, cannot be declared as lapsed based on a decision that has been expressly overruled. The appellant also contended that they have provided sufficient explanations for the delay in filing the appeal.
Jagan Singh & Ors. (Respondents):
The respondents strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay, citing the lack of explanation for the significant delay of 1,231 days. They argued that the appellant and the Government of NCT of Delhi acquiesced to the impugned judgment, which granted valuable rights to the successful litigant. The respondents emphasized that the court should treat applications for condonation of delay made by the state or its agencies on par with other litigants. Additionally, they referred to an appellant's policy from December 22, 2017, which outlined procedures for initiating fresh acquisition proceedings in cases where the acquisition had been declared as lapsed. They claimed that since the acquired land had already been utilized for public purposes, the direction of the High Court to pay compensation in accordance with the 2013 Act should be upheld.
Observations by the Court:
The court took note of photographs presented during the proceedings, which revealed that a car clinic and other vendors had occupied a section of the pavement adjacent to the metro depot. The bench stated that a citizen had lost valuable property due to compulsory acquisition, and since the acquisition was made for a public purpose, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and other authorities involved should prevent any unauthorized use of the pavement.
The court expressed hope that the DDA or the relevant authorities would promptly address the situation in accordance with the law. It further directed the DDA to consider its observations seriously and take necessary action.
The court also noted that if the land acquisition is valid under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, the respondents are not entitled to claim compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013, as the latter act does not apply to the acquisition.
The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of condoning the delay of 1,231 days in filing the appeal. It emphasized that a liberal and justice-oriented approach should be adopted in matters of condonation of delay to ensure the preservation of substantive rights. Considering the use of the land for public purposes over the years, the court decided to condone the delay.
The decision of the Court:
The court instructed the DDA to pay the compensation determined as per the Award made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act within the same time frame.
Case Name: Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 564 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 4335 of 2023
Advocates of the Petitioners: AOR Ashwani Kumar
Advocates of the Respondent: AOR Gagan Gupta
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
