Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a common judgment and order dated 27.10.2016 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which declared that the acquisition of certain lands had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The State of Haryana appealed against this decision, arguing that the acquisition proceedings were valid and that possession had been taken as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court found that compensation had not been paid for over five years, leading to the conclusion that the statutory conditions for lapse were met. The appellants contended that the lands had vested with the State due to possession being taken. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, noted the High Court's reliance on the Indore Development Authority judgment and decided to remand the matter back to the High Court for a fresh examination of the writ petitions, allowing for all contentions to be considered. The Court requested the High Court to resolve the matter within nine months and permitted the original landowners to seek deacquisition under Section 101A of the Act, 2013. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, ensuring that all parties retained their rights to present their arguments afresh.
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, 2013, Section 24(2) - The High Court declared the acquisition lapsed due to non-payment of compensation for over five years, satisfying statutory conditions. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to evaluate possession and compensation issues in light of the law laid down in Indore Development Authority case. Held that the High Court must decide the writ petitions afresh (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition of land lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 due to non-payment of compensation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, requesting the High Court to decide the writ petitions afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits, while keeping all contentions open.
Law Points
- Land Acquisition
- deemed lapse
- compensation
- possession
- remand
- deacquisition
