Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Lucknow Development Authority against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dated 03.07.2017, which declared that the acquisition of Plot No.219, measuring 1 bigha, 10 biswa and 10 biswansi in Village Malesemau, Lucknow, had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The original writ petitioners had challenged the acquisition proceedings, but during the pendency of the writ petition, the challenge was restricted to the said plot. The High Court allowed the writ petition solely on the ground that compensation was not tendered or paid to the original landowners under Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the time the 2013 Act came into force. However, the appellant authority contended that possession of the land was taken on 13.02.2003 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and delivered to the Lucknow Development Authority on the same day, as evidenced by a Possession Certificate. The Supreme Court, relying on its Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, held that for a deemed lapse under Section 24(2), both conditions of non-possession and non-payment must be satisfied. Since possession was taken prior to the 2013 Act, the acquisition proceedings did not lapse. The Court also noted that the compensation had been deposited in the court of the District Judge under Section 30(2) of the 1894 Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the original writ petition.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) - Twin Conditions - The Supreme Court held that for acquisition proceedings to be deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, both conditions of non-possession and non-payment of compensation must be satisfied. Since possession was taken on 13.02.2003, the condition of non-possession was not met, and therefore no lapse occurred. (Paras 3-4) B) Land Acquisition - Possession - Vesting of Land - Once possession is taken under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land vests in the State and there is no divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The mode of taking possession is by drawing an inquest report/memorandum. (Para 3.2) C) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Deposit in Court - The expression 'paid' in Section 24(2) does not include deposit of compensation in court. Non-deposit does not result in lapse; instead, the proviso to Section 24(2) provides for compensation under the 2013 Act if not deposited for majority of holdings. (Para 3.2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in declaring that the 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, despite the fact that possession of the land was taken on 13.02.2003, prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the original writ petition. The acquisition proceedings were held not to have lapsed.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013 requires both non-possession and non-payment for deemed lapse
- possession taken prior to 2013 Act vests land in State
- deposit of compensation in court does not amount to payment
- word 'or' in Section 24(2) read as 'nor' or 'and'.
