Summary
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) declared the acquisition of Plot No. 219 in Village Malesemau, Lucknow, lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, solely because compensation had not been tendered or paid to the landowners when that Act came into force. The Lucknow Development Authority appealed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had taken possession on 13 February 2003 and delivered it to the Authority the same day under a possession certificate, and the High Court had not dealt with this. Under Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, lapse requires both non-possession and non-payment. Once possession was taken before the 2013 Act, there was no lapse. The writ petition was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on the ground that compensation was not paid, where possession had been taken and handed over to the development authority in 2003.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Following paragraph 366 of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, the twin conditions of not taking possession and not paying compensation must both be satisfied for a deemed lapse; possession taken in 2003 defeats the claim. (¶¶ 3.1, 3.2, 4)
Held
- The Authority's specific case, supported by the possession certificate, was that possession was taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and delivered to it on 13.02.2003, and compensation was later deposited under Section 30(2) of the 1894 Act; the High Court declared lapse without addressing possession, solely on non-tender of compensation. (¶ 3.1)
- Since possession was taken long before the 2013 Act came into force, the acquisition could not be deemed to have lapsed; the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the High Court's judgment was set aside. (¶¶ 2, 3.1, 4)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 8887 of 2022 allowed without costs; the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) judgment dated 03.07.2017 in Misc. Bench No. 4149 of 2006 quashed and the writ petition dismissed.