Case Note & Summary
The case involves appeals by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Government of NCT of Delhi against a judgment of the Delhi High Court. The High Court had allowed a writ petition filed by Chandermal and others, declaring that the acquisition of their 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 land acquisition process had commenced with a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 1964, and an award was declared on 10.12.1997. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) claimed that possession of the land was taken and handed over to DDA on 26.05.1998. The High Court accepted that possession was taken but held that since compensation had not been tendered to the landowners, the acquisition lapsed. The Supreme Court noted that before the High Court, the LAC and DDA had filed counter affidavits stating that possession was handed over on 26.05.1998, and the landowners did not file any rejoinder or challenge the legality of possession at that time. The Court observed that the possession certificate dated 26.05.1998 mentioned handing over possession to DDA, and mere non-mention of taking over from landowners did not invalidate it. The core legal issue was whether the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) when possession was taken but compensation was not paid. The Supreme Court relied on its Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, which held that the word 'or' in Section 24(2) must be read as 'nor' or 'and', meaning deemed lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. Since possession was taken, there was no lapse. The Court also held that the mode of taking possession is by drawing an inquest report/memorandum, and once possession is taken under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in the State and cannot be divested under Section 24(2). Additionally, non-deposit of compensation in court does not cause lapse; only non-tender under Section 31(1) matters. The Court concluded that the High Court's judgment was contrary to the Constitution Bench decision and set it aside, allowing the appeals. The Court also noted that Section 24(2) does not revive stale claims and applies only to pending proceedings as on 1-1-2014.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) of Act, 2013 - Interpretation of 'or' - The Supreme Court held that the word 'or' in Section 24(2) must be read as 'nor' or 'and', meaning deemed lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. In this case, possession was taken on 26.05.1998, so there is no lapse even if compensation was not paid. (Paras 5.2, 6) B) Land Acquisition - Possession - Mode of Taking - The Court held that the mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act is by drawing an inquest report/memorandum. 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 5.2) C) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Tender under Section 31(1) of 1894 Act - The Court held that if compensation has been tendered under Section 31(1), it is not open to the landowner to claim lapse under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit in court. Non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in lapse. (Para 5.2) D) Land Acquisition - Section 24(2) - Applicability to Concluded Proceedings - The Court held that Section 24(2) does not give rise to a new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings. It applies only to proceedings pending on 1-1-2014 and does not revive stale or time-barred claims. (Para 5.2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in declaring that 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 on the ground that compensation was not tendered, despite possession having been taken.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and held that the acquisition is not deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- word 'or' read as 'nor' or 'and'
- deemed lapse only if both possession not taken and compensation not paid
- possession taken vests land in State
- no divesting under Section 24(2)
- mode of taking possession by drawing inquest report/memorandum
- compensation tendered under Section 31(1) of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 sufficient
- non-deposit of compensation in court does not cause lapse
- Section 24(2) does not revive stale claims.
