Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed an appeal by the Government of NCT of Delhi against a High Court judgment that declared land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The land was acquired in 1964 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a Section 4 notification issued on 13 February 1964, an award made on 12 May 1967, possession taken on 7 June 1967, and compensation deposited on 13 November 1967. The respondent, not the recorded owner, filed a writ petition based on documents like a General Power of Attorney and receipts, seeking lapse of acquisition. The High Court allowed the petition, relying on its earlier decision in Smt. Harbans Kaur, which in turn relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki. The Supreme Court noted that the Pune Municipal Corporation decision had been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. The Court emphasized that the word 'or' in Section 24(2) should be read as 'nor' or 'and', meaning both conditions must fail for lapse. Additionally, the Court held that the respondent, as a subsequent purchaser, lacked locus standi to challenge the acquisition, citing precedents like Shiv Kumar v. Union of India. The Court found that possession was validly taken by drawing a panchnama in 1967, and compensation was deposited, so no lapse occurred. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order, allowing the appeal and setting aside the declaration of lapse, with no costs awarded.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition - Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Acquisition proceedings initiated in 1964 with possession taken in 1967 and compensation deposited in 1967 - Held that deemed lapse under Section 24(2) requires both non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation, and since possession was taken and compensation deposited, there is no lapse (Paras 2-3). B) Land Acquisition - Locus Standi - Subsequent Purchaser - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Writ petitioner was not recorded owner but filed petition based on General Power of Attorney and receipts - Held that subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge acquisition or lapse of acquisition, following Shiv Kumar v. Union of India and other decisions (Paras 2.3-3). C) Land Acquisition - Possession - Mode of Taking Possession - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 16 - Possession taken by drawing panchnama in 1967 - Held that taking possession by drawing inquest report/memorandum is valid mode under Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and once possession is taken, land vests in State with no divesting (Paras 2.2-3). D) Precedent - Overruling of Earlier Decision - Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki - Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal overruled Pune Municipal Corporation decision - Held that High Court erred in relying on overruled precedent to allow writ petition (Paras 2.1-2.2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and whether the writ petitioner had locus standi to challenge the acquisition
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the High Court's judgment and order, declaring that acquisition proceedings did not lapse
Law Points
- Deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act
- 2013 requires both non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation
- Locus standi of subsequent purchaser to challenge acquisition is absent
- Possession taken by drawing panchnama under Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 is valid
- Pune Municipal Corporation decision overruled by Constitution Bench
