Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a land acquisition matter where the Delhi Development Authority appealed against a High Court judgment that declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The High Court had allowed a writ petition, ruling that the acquisition lapsed due to non-payment of compensation, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki. The appellant authority contended before the High Court that possession of the land was taken on 21.04.2006, but the High Court focused solely on the compensation aspect. The core legal issue was the correct interpretation of Section 24(2) regarding the conditions for lapse of acquisition. The Supreme Court analyzed the matter by referencing the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which had overruled Pune Municipal Corporation. The Constitution Bench held that for acquisition to lapse under Section 24(2), both conditions—non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession—must be met. Since possession was taken in 2006, only one condition was unsatisfied. The Supreme Court found the High Court's reliance on an overruled precedent erroneous and set aside the impugned judgment, restoring the acquisition proceedings. The decision clarified that lapse requires failure of both payment and possession, not just one.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition - Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The High Court had declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) based on non-payment of compensation, relying on the overruled Pune Municipal Corporation case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that under the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority, for lapse under Section 24(2), both conditions of non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession must be satisfied. Since possession was taken on 21.04.2006, the acquisition did not lapse. (Paras 1-2) B) Precedent - Overruling of Case Law - Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki - The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation was erroneous as that decision had been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. The Court emphasized that all decisions following Pune Municipal Corporation were also overruled, making the High Court's legal basis invalid. (Paras 2-2.1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition of land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, when possession was taken but compensation was not paid.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, and held that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is not deemed to have lapsed.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation precedent
- Requirement of both non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession for lapse
- Constitution Bench authority in Indore Development Authority
