Case Note & Summary
The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court which declared that the acquisition of land in question had 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 the writ petition of the original writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) on the ground that neither compensation was paid nor possession was taken. The appellant contended that possession of the land was taken on 31.12.2013, before the Act came into force on 01.01.2014, and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which held that if possession is taken prior to the Act, there is no deemed lapse under Section 24(2). The respondent argued that only paper possession was taken and actual physical possession remained with them. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had not disputed that possession was taken on 31.12.2013, and that taking possession by drawing a punchnama is a legal mode of taking possession as per Indore Development Authority. The Court held that since possession was taken before the Act came into force, the acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) merely because compensation was not paid. The High Court's reasoning was contrary to the law laid down in Indore Development Authority. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Possession taken prior to commencement of Act - Where possession of land was taken on 31.12.2013, i.e., before the Act came into force on 01.01.2014, and possession was taken by drawing a punchnama (a legal mode of taking possession as per Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal), the acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) merely because compensation was not paid. The High Court erred in declaring lapse solely on ground of non-payment of compensation, ignoring that possession was already taken. (Paras 3-3.1)
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 of the land was taken prior to the commencement of the Act but compensation was not paid.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner stands dismissed.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- deemed lapse of acquisition
- possession taken by drawing punchnama
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
