Case Note & Summary
The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed against the High Court of Delhi's judgment in Writ Petition (C) No. 2709 of 2015, which declared that land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were deemed to have 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 Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183. However, the Supreme Court noted that the appellants had specifically contended that possession could not be taken due to pending proceedings initiated by the landowners challenging the acquisition, which ultimately failed up to the Supreme Court. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, which held that the period of interim orders passed by courts must be excluded in computing the five-year period for lapse under Section 24(2). The Court found that the High Court failed to consider this aspect. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order, and held that the acquisition proceedings did not lapse. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) of Act, 2013 - Possession Not Taken Due to Court Orders - The High Court declared acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183. However, the Supreme Court held that when possession could not be taken due to pending proceedings at the instance of landowners challenging the acquisition, which ended up to this Court, it is not open for landowners to contend that acquisition lapsed. The Court relied on Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified that the period of subsistence of interim orders is excluded in computing five years for lapse. The impugned judgment was quashed and set aside. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in declaring 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, when possession could not be taken due to pending proceedings initiated by the landowners.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and held that the land acquisition proceedings did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. No costs were awarded.
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 court orders
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
- (2020) 8 SCC 129
Case Details
2022 LawText (SC) (12) 42
Civil Appeal No. 8937 of 2022 (@ SLP (C) No. 21822 of 2022) (@ Diary No. 27984 of 2022)
M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court judgment 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 to set aside the High Court's declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.
Filing Reason
The High Court declared that the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki.
Previous Decisions
The High Court of Delhi allowed Writ Petition (C) No. 2709 of 2015, declaring the acquisition lapsed. The landowners had previously challenged the acquisition proceedings up to the Supreme Court and failed.
Issues
Whether the High Court erred in declaring the land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when possession could not be taken due to pending proceedings initiated by the landowners.
Whether the period of interim orders passed by courts should be excluded in computing the five-year period for lapse under Section 24(2).
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that possession could not be taken due to pending proceedings at the instance of the landowners challenging the acquisition, which ended up to this Court.
The respondents (landowners) contended that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) as possession was not taken and compensation was not paid.
Ratio Decidendi
When possession of land could not be taken due to pending proceedings initiated by the landowners challenging the acquisition, the period of interim orders passed by courts must be excluded in computing the five-year period for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The landowners cannot claim lapse when their own actions prevented possession.
Judgment Excerpts
However, the High Court has failed to notice and consider the specific case on behalf of the appellants that at the relevant time, the possession could not be taken over due to the pending proceedings at the instance of the landowners challenging the acquisition proceedings, which ended upto this Court.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
The High Court of Delhi allowed Writ Petition (C) No. 2709 of 2015, declaring that the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed to the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21822 of 2022, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 8937 of 2022. The Supreme Court heard the appeal and delivered judgment on December 2, 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)
