Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a judgment by the High Court of Delhi which declared that the acquisition of land by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The DDA appealed against this decision. The High Court had relied on a previous ruling by the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which was later overruled by a Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. The Supreme Court clarified that the conditions for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) require both possession not being taken and compensation not being paid for five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. The court noted that the original writ petitioner claimed rights through an Agreement to Sell dated 09.05.2005, but established law states that such an agreement does not confer rights to challenge acquisition proceedings. The court concluded that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition and quashed its order, dismissing the writ petition filed by the original petitioner. The appeal was allowed with no costs awarded.
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 court held that the acquisition does not lapse if possession has been taken or compensation has been paid, clarifying the interpretation of 'or' in Section 24(2) as 'nor' or 'and'. The court emphasized that non-payment of compensation does not lead to lapse if possession has been taken (Paras 3-4).
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.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's order declaring the acquisition lapsed, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner.
Law Points
- Land acquisition
- deemed lapse
- compensation
- possession
- subsequent purchaser rights
