Summary
In a writ petition filed in 2015, the Delhi High Court held that acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, relying heavily on Pune Municipal Corporation. It overlooked the Government of NCT of Delhi's case that possession could not be taken while the landowners' challenge to the acquisition was pending, a challenge they lost in the Supreme Court. Applying Indore Development Authority, the Supreme Court set the declaration aside. Since the landowners' own pending challenge prevented possession, they could not afterwards treat the absence of possession as a ground for deemed lapse.
Issues
- Whether failure to take possession while the landowners' own challenge to the acquisition was pending can found a claim of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Lapse presupposes the authorities' own inaction over five years or more, excluding periods covered by court orders (Indore Development Authority); landowners cannot rely on non-possession caused by their own litigation. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2)
Held
- The High Court relied heavily on Pune Municipal Corporation and failed to consider that possession could not be taken during the landowners' unsuccessful challenge to the acquisition, which went up to this Court. (¶¶ 2, 2.1)
- Having prevented possession by their own pending challenge, the landowners could not contend that the proceedings lapsed because possession was not taken; the declaration is unsustainable in view of Indore Development Authority. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2, 3)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 8937 of 2022 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 20.07.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 2709 of 2015 declaring the acquisition lapsed set aside; no costs.