Supreme Court Quashes High Court Order on Land Acquisition Lapse Due to Overruled Precedent. Acquisition Not Deemed Lapsed as Possession Taken Despite Non-Payment of Compensation Under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a judgment by the High Court of Delhi, which declared that the acquisition of certain land had 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 this decision, arguing that possession of the land had been taken on 21.03.2007, and thus the acquisition could not be deemed to have lapsed. The High Court's ruling relied on the precedent set in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which was later overruled by the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. The Supreme Court clarified that the conditions for a deemed lapse under Section 24(2) require both possession not being taken and compensation not being paid. Since possession had been taken, the court found the High Court's ruling unsustainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order and dismissed the original writ petition, allowing the appeal without costs.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse of Acquisition - Conditions for Lapse - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24(2) - The High Court declared the acquisition lapsed due to non-payment of compensation despite possession being taken. The Supreme Court held that if possession has been taken, there is no lapse under Section 24(2) even if compensation is unpaid (Paras 3-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

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.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's order declaring the acquisition lapsed and dismissed the original writ petition, allowing the appeal without costs.

Law Points

  • Land acquisition
  • deemed lapse
  • compensation
  • possession
  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
  • Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
  • 2013
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2023 LawText (SC) (01) 276

Civil Appeal No. 379 of 2023

2023-01-20

M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar

Government of NCT of Delhi

Ratiram & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against High Court's order declaring land acquisition lapsed.

Remedy Sought

Government of NCT of Delhi sought to quash the High Court's order.

Filing Reason

High Court declared acquisition lapsed due to non-payment of compensation.

Previous Decisions

High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which was overruled.

Issues

Whether the acquisition of land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act. Whether possession taken affects the lapse of acquisition despite non-payment of compensation.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that possession was taken, thus acquisition could not lapse. Respondents contended that non-payment of compensation led to deemed lapse.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that if possession of land has been taken, the acquisition cannot be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, regardless of whether compensation has been paid.

Judgment Excerpts

The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. In case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse.

Procedural History

The High Court allowed the writ petition and declared the acquisition lapsed, leading to the present appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act: Section 24(2)
  • Land Acquisition Act: Section 4, Section 6, Section 9, Section 10, Section 31, Section 34, Section 16
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Employees' Right to Bonus Under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 — Clarifies Applicability Despite Authorised Controller Appointment.
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Dismisses ESI Corporation's Appeal in Work Injury Disability Assessment. Medical Appeal Tribunal's 10% Functional Disability Finding Upheld as Factual Determination Not Open to Interference Under Section 82 of ESI Act.