Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi against the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had declared that the acquisition of land in question 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 proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act, 1894) with a Section 4 notification issued on 23.01.1965, and an award was declared followed by a Section 12(2) notice on 19.09.1986. The appellants claimed that possession of the land was taken and handed over to the DDA on 22.09.1986. After about 29 years, the respondents (original writ petitioners) filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that compensation had not been paid to the recorded owners. The High Court, relying on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183, allowed the petition. The Supreme Court noted that the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation had been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Constitution Bench held that the word 'or' in Section 24(2) must be read as 'nor' or 'and', meaning that deemed lapse occurs only when both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. Since possession was taken in 1986, the acquisition did not lapse. The Court also observed that the respondents' claim of possession was inconsistent with their admission of illegal construction on the land. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed the writ petition, without commenting on the pending writ petition regarding regularization of the colony.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 - Interpretation of 'or' - The word 'or' in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation must be read as 'nor' or '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 commencement of the 2013 Act. If possession has been taken, non-payment of compensation does not result in lapse. (Paras 3.2, 366.3) B) Land Acquisition - Overruling of Precedent - Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki - The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation (2014) 3 SCC 183, which held that non-payment of compensation alone leads to lapse under Section 24(2), has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129. (Paras 3.2, 365) C) Land Acquisition - Possession - Mode of Taking Possession - Under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, once possession is taken by drawing inquest report/memorandum, the land vests in the State. There is no divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. (Para 366.7) D) Land Acquisition - Revival of Stale Claims - Section 24(2) does not give rise to a new cause of action to question concluded proceedings. It applies only to proceedings pending on 1-1-2014 and does not revive time-barred claims. (Para 366.9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether 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 when possession of the land was taken but compensation was not paid to the recorded owners.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petition. No order as to 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
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Deemed lapse of acquisition
- Possession taken
- Compensation not paid
- Overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
