Supreme Court Allows Appeal by Land Acquisition Authority in Land Lapse Case Under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013. Possession Taken and Land Put to Use Prior to 2013 Act Precludes Deemed Lapse.

Admin

2026-05-18 22:18:12

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves an appeal by the Land and Building Department of the NCT of Delhi and others against a judgment of the High Court of Delhi. The High Court had allowed a writ petition and declared that the acquisition of the subject land was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013). The High Court also directed that the original writ petitioner would be entitled to compensation under the Act, 2013. The facts reveal that before the High Court, the Department specifically contended that possession of the subject land had been taken. The High Court, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground that compensation had not been paid, allowed the writ petition. However, the High Court also accepted that possession was taken and the land was put to use by the Department. The original writ petitioner admitted the same and prayed for compensation under the Act, 2013. The Supreme Court, relying on its decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, held that once possession of the subject land was taken over and the land was put to use prior to the 2013 Act coming into force, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition. The Court set aside the High Court's declaration of deemed lapse but did not disturb the direction regarding payment of compensation under the Act, 2013. The appeal was allowed accordingly.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) - Possession Taken - Land Put to Use - The issue was whether acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, when possession was taken and land was put to use before the 2013 Act came into force, but compensation was not paid. The Supreme Court held that once possession is taken and land is put to use prior to the 2013 Act, there is no deemed lapse, following Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129. (Paras 2.1-3)

B) Land Acquisition - Compensation under New Act - Entitlement - The High Court had directed that the original writ petitioner would be entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act. The Supreme Court did not disturb this direction, as the land was already put to use by the beneficiary department. (Para 3)

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 of the land has been taken and the land has been put to use prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, but compensation has not been paid.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's declaration of deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, but did not disturb the direction that the original writ petitioner would be entitled to compensation under the Act, 2013.

Law Points

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
2013
deemed lapse
possession taken
compensation not paid
land put to use
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal

Case Details

2023 LawText (SC) (4) 128

Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023

2023-04-10

M.R. Shah, J.

Land and Building Department of the NCT of Delhi and Others

Subhash Chander Khatri & Ors.

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against High Court judgment declaring acquisition deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Remedy Sought

The appellants (Land and Building Department of NCT of Delhi and others) sought to set aside the High Court's declaration of deemed lapse of acquisition.

Filing Reason

The High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that the acquisition of the subject land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, on the ground that compensation had not been paid, despite possession having been taken.

Previous Decisions

The High Court of Delhi allowed Writ Petition (C) No.12143 of 2015 on 15.01.2018, declaring the acquisition deemed lapsed and directing compensation under the Act, 2013.

Issues

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 has been taken and land put to use prior to the 2013 Act, but compensation not paid.

Submissions/Arguments

The Department argued that possession of the subject land had been taken and the land was put to use prior to the 2013 Act coming into force. The original writ petitioner admitted that possession was taken and land was put to use, and prayed for compensation under the Act, 2013.

Ratio Decidendi

Once possession of the subject land is taken over and the land is put to use prior to the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, as held in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129.

Judgment Excerpts

Once the possession of the subject land was taken over and in fact was put to use prior to 2013 Act came into force, as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition.

Procedural History

The High Court of Delhi allowed Writ Petition (C) No.12143 of 2015 on 15.01.2018, declaring the acquisition deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, and directing compensation. The Land and Building Department of NCT of Delhi and others appealed to the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023.