Case Note & Summary
The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed against the Delhi High Court's judgment dated 01.12.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No.27 of 2015, 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 (Act 2013). The land acquisition process began with a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 10.11.1960, followed by a declaration under Section 6 on 06.01.1969, and an award on 31.01.1983. The appellant and the Land Acquisition Collector claimed that possession of the land was taken on 04.03.1983 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). In 2015, respondent no.1 filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition and seeking a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of Act 2013. The High Court, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, held that since compensation had not been tendered, the acquisition lapsed. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal had overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and held that for lapse under Section 24(2), both conditions of non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation must be satisfied. Since possession was taken in 1983, the acquisition did not lapse. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) - Twin Conditions - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The issue was whether acquisition lapses when possession is taken but compensation not paid. The Supreme Court held that for lapse under Section 24(2), both conditions of non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation must be satisfied. Since possession was taken in 1983, there is no lapse. The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which held otherwise, was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. (Paras 3-4) B) Land Acquisition - Overruling of Precedent - Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation to declare lapse. The Supreme Court noted that this decision was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. Consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside. (Paras 3-4)
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 has been taken but compensation has not been tendered.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petition. The acquisition was held not to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- twin conditions of possession and compensation
- word 'or' read as 'nor' or 'and'
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal overrules Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki
