Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had declared that the land acquisition proceedings concerning the 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 based its decision solely on the ground that compensation had not been paid to the landowners, despite the Land Acquisition Collector stating in its counter affidavit that possession of the land had been taken on 19.01.2006. The DDA had also submitted that it had released Rs.10 crores to the Land and Building Department on 28.08.1990 for the acquired land. The Supreme Court found the High Court's view unsustainable in light of the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which clarified that under Section 24(2), the word 'or' between possession and compensation must be read as 'nor' or 'and'. Therefore, deemed lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. Since possession had been taken, the non-payment of compensation alone does not trigger a lapse. The Court quashed the High Court's order and dismissed the original writ petition.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act - Interpretation of 'or' - The Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal held that the word 'or' in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation must be read as 'nor' or 'and'. Deemed lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. If possession has been taken, non-payment of compensation does not result in lapse. (Paras 3-4) B) Land Acquisition - Payment of Compensation - Deposit in Court - The expression 'paid' in Section 24(2) does not include deposit of compensation in court. Non-deposit does not lead to lapse; the proviso to Section 24(2) provides for compensation under the 2013 Act in case of non-deposit for majority of holdings. (Para 3) C) Land Acquisition - Vesting of Land - Once possession is taken under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in the State and there is no divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in declaring that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 solely on the ground that compensation was not paid, despite possession having been taken.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the original writ petition. No costs.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
- deemed lapse
- possession taken
- compensation not paid
- 'or' read as 'nor'
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
