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 land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The dispute pertained to land acquisition proceedings where the original landowners had challenged the acquisition up to the Supreme Court and failed. The High Court, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, held that the proceedings had lapsed due to non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to consider that possession could not be taken due to the pending litigation initiated by the landowners themselves. The Court applied the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which clarified that the period covered by interim orders of court must be excluded in computing the five-year period under Section 24(2). The Court held that where possession could not be taken due to pending proceedings, landowners cannot claim lapse. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order and dismissed the writ petition, allowing the appeal with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act - Possession Not Taken Due to Pending Litigation - Where possession could not be taken over due to pending proceedings at the instance of landowners challenging the acquisition, it is not open for landowners to contend that acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. (Paras 2.1-2.2, 3) B) Land Acquisition - Interpretation of Section 24(2) - Word 'or' read as 'nor' or 'and' - Deemed lapse occurs only where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the 2013 Act, possession has not been taken nor compensation paid. If possession has been taken but compensation not paid, or compensation paid but possession not taken, there is no lapse. (Para 2.2, 366.3) C) Land Acquisition - Mode of Taking Possession - Under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, once award passed and possession taken by drawing inquest report/memorandum, land vests in State and there is no divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. (Para 2.2, 366.7) D) Land Acquisition - Applicability of Section 24(2) - Section 24(2) applies to proceedings pending on 1-1-2014 and does not revive stale or time-barred claims or reopen concluded proceedings. (Para 2.2, 366.9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in declaring that land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, when possession could not be taken due to pending proceedings initiated by landowners challenging the acquisition.
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.
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
- possession not taken due to pending litigation
- exclusion of interim order period in computation of five years
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal principles
