Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi and another against the judgment of the Delhi High Court. The High Court had declared that land acquisition proceedings concerning the land in question 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 relied on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129 had overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2). In the present case, the possession of the land was taken on 03.12.2012 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority immediately. Compensation was deposited with the Reference Court on 28.10.2014 due to an apportionment dispute. The Supreme Court held that in light of the Constitution Bench decision, the High Court's order was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was quashed and set aside, and pending applications were disposed of.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act - Possession Taken and Compensation Deposited - The High Court declared lapse based on Pune Municipal Corporation, which was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. The Supreme Court held that since possession was taken in 2012 and compensation deposited in court, there is no lapse. (Paras 2-3)
B) Land Acquisition - Overruling of Precedent - Pune Municipal Corporation overruled - The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 was specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129. (Para 2.2)
C) Land Acquisition - Interpretation of 'or' in Section 24(2) - The word 'or' between possession and compensation is read as 'nor' or 'and'. Deemed lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. (Para 2.2, 366.3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in declaring that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when possession had been taken and compensation deposited in court, in light of the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the High Court's judgment, and held that the land acquisition proceedings did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- deemed lapse
- possession taken
- compensation deposited
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal overrules Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki
Case Details
2022 LawText (SC) (12) 46
Civil Appeal No. 8932 of 2022 (@ SLP (C) No. 21813 of 2022) (@ Diary No. 28814 of 2022)
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR
Land and Building Department Through Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court judgment declaring lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the High Court's declaration of lapse and uphold the acquisition.
Filing Reason
The High Court declared that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, despite possession having been taken and compensation deposited.
Previous Decisions
The High Court allowed the writ petition relying on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183.
Issues
Whether the High Court's declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was correct in light of the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal.
Whether the overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation affects the validity of the High Court's judgment.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that possession was taken on 03.12.2012 and compensation was deposited in court on 28.10.2014, so there is no lapse.
Respondents relied on Pune Municipal Corporation to claim that non-tender of compensation before the 2013 Act results in lapse.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, deemed lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. If possession has been taken, there is no lapse even if compensation is not paid. The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority.
Judgment Excerpts
In view of the above and when the relied upon judgment in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been specifically overruled by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and considering the fact that the possession of the land in question was already taken over in the year 2012 and the same was handed over to the beneficiary – DDA immediately and in light of the observations made by the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) made in paragraphs 365 and 366 (reproduced hereinabove), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and 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. 11238 of 2015 declaring lapse of acquisition. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court via SLP (C) No. 21813 of 2022, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 8932 of 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 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)
