Case Note & Summary
The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court which declared that the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the subject land 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 relied on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183, holding that non-tender of compensation resulted in lapse. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129 had overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and clarified that under Section 24(2), the word 'or' must be read as 'nor' or 'and', meaning lapse occurs only when both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. Since the Government claimed possession was taken on 05.09.2002, the High Court's order was unsustainable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed 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 - The High Court declared acquisition proceedings lapsed solely on ground that compensation was not tendered, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation. However, the Supreme Court held that since possession was taken on 05.09.2002, and the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority, the lapse declaration is unsustainable. The Court set aside the High Court order and allowed the appeal. (Paras 2-4)
B) Land Acquisition - Overruling of Precedent - Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 - The Supreme Court noted that the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129 has specifically overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and all decisions following it. Therefore, the High Court's reliance on the overruled decision was erroneous. (Paras 3-4)
C) Land Acquisition - Interpretation of Section 24(2) - The word 'or' between possession and compensation in Section 24(2) must be read as 'nor' or 'and'. Deemed lapse occurs only where both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. If possession has been taken, there is no lapse even if compensation is not paid. (Para 366.3 of Indore Development Authority)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court's declaration 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 is sustainable in light of the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petition. No costs. Pending applications disposed of.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings
- overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
- interpretation of 'or' as 'nor' or 'and'
- possession taken but compensation not paid does not result in lapse
Case Details
2022 LawText (SC) (12) 33
Civil Appeal No. 8933 of 2022 (@ SLP (C) No. 21816 of 2022) (@ Diary No. 25683 of 2022)
M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
Government of NCT of Delhi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court order declaring land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Remedy Sought
The Government of NCT of Delhi sought setting aside of the High Court's declaration that acquisition proceedings had lapsed.
Filing Reason
The High Court allowed the writ petition of the landowners declaring lapse of acquisition proceedings solely on the ground that compensation was not tendered, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation which was later overruled.
Previous Decisions
The High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 10135 of 2015 declared that the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Issues
Whether the High Court's declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is sustainable after the overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority.
Whether possession having been taken on 05.09.2002, the acquisition proceedings can be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) when compensation was not paid.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant (Government of NCT of Delhi) argued that possession of the subject land was taken on 05.09.2002, and the High Court erred in relying on the overruled decision in Pune Municipal Corporation.
The respondents (original writ petitioners) disputed the fact of possession but the High Court did not decide that issue, instead relying solely on non-tender of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the word 'or' between possession and compensation must be read as 'nor' or 'and'. Deemed lapse occurs only when both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. If possession has been taken, there is no lapse even if compensation is not paid. The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which held otherwise, has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal.
Judgment Excerpts
The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
In view of the above and as the judgment of this Court relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been specifically overruled by this Court and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
Procedural History
The Government of NCT of Delhi filed a Special Leave Petition (Diary No. 25683 of 2022) against the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 10135 of 2015, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 8933 of 2022. The Supreme Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on 02.12.2022.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 16, Section 31, Section 34
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24(1)(a), Section 24(1)(b), Section 24(2)
