Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Land Acquisition Collector (South East), Delhi Government, against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 25.04.2016 in Writ Petition (C) No. 4576 of 2015. The High Court had allowed the writ petition filed by Dharamvir and others, declaring that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to 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 (Act, 2013). The High Court relied on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183, and observed that compensation had not been paid, despite noting that possession was taken on 16.03.2004. The appellant challenged this, arguing that the Pune Municipal Corporation decision had been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the Constitution Bench had overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2). Specifically, the Court held that the word 'or' in Section 24(2) must be read as 'nor' or 'and', meaning deemed lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid for five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. Since possession was taken on 16.03.2004, there was no lapse. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the original writ petition. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) - Overruling of Precedent - The High Court declared land 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, which was subsequently overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. The Supreme Court held that since possession was taken on 16.03.2004, and the decision relied upon was overruled, the impugned judgment is unsustainable. (Paras 1-3) B) Land Acquisition - Interpretation of Section 24(2) - Possession and Compensation - The Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority held that the word 'or' in Section 24(2) must be read as 'nor' or 'and', meaning deemed lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid for five years or more prior to 1-1-2014. In this case, possession was taken, so no lapse. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in declaring that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, relying on the overruled decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment and order dated 25.04.2016, and dismissed the original Writ Petition (C) No. 4576 of 2015. 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
- overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
- possession taken
- compensation not paid
- no lapse
