Case Note & Summary
The Government of NCT of Delhi and another appealed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court which declared that the acquisition proceedings concerning certain land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). The original writ petitioner before the High Court was a subsequent purchaser of the land. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, held that since compensation was not paid or tendered in accordance with law, the acquisition had lapsed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a subsequent purchaser cannot claim lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as per its earlier decision in Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. Furthermore, the High Court's reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation was misplaced because that decision was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. The Constitution Bench clarified that the word 'or' in Section 24(2) must be read as 'nor' or 'and', meaning lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. Since the appellants had taken possession of the land on 17.09.2008 and mutated the government's name in revenue records, there was no lapse. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings - Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act, 2013 - Subsequent Purchaser - A subsequent purchaser of land is not entitled to claim that acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by a subsequent purchaser seeking declaration of lapse. (Para 2.1) B) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings - Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act, 2013 - Overruled Precedent - The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183, which was relied upon by the High Court, has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129. Therefore, the High Court's judgment based on that overruled decision is unsustainable. (Para 2.2) C) Land Acquisition - Interpretation of Section 24(2) - Word 'or' - The word 'or' in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation must be read as 'nor' or as 'and'. Deemed lapse occurs only where both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid for five years or more prior to 1-1-2014. If possession has been taken, there is no lapse even if compensation is not paid. (Para 366.3) D) Land Acquisition - 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. (Para 366.7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a subsequent purchaser can claim that land acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and whether the High Court's reliance on the overruled decision in Pune Municipal Corporation is sustainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petition. No costs.
Law Points
- Subsequent purchaser cannot claim lapsing of acquisition under Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act
- 2013
- Pune Municipal Corporation overruled by Indore Development Authority
- word 'or' in Section 24(2) to be read as 'nor' or 'and'
- possession taken vests land in State
- no lapse if compensation not paid but possession taken
