Summary
Land in village Chowkri Mubarakbad notified in 1959 and awarded in 1964 was, per the Government's counter affidavit, taken into possession on 1 May 1964, with compensation deposited in the Reference Court in 1965 and then in the Treasury in 1967; claimants through one recorded owner nonetheless obtained from the Delhi High Court in 2017 a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the Court disbelieving the taking of possession because the land was vacant and relying on Pune Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court allowed the North Delhi Municipal Corporation's appeal: the petitioners never claimed to have built the boundary wall, no grievance about compensation was raised for decades, Pune Municipal Corporation is overruled, and declaring a 1959 acquisition lapsed was a very serious error; any claim to unpaid compensation may be pursued in accordance with law.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition of 1959, where possession was recorded as taken in 1964 and compensation deposited in court and then in the Treasury, could be declared lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 at the instance of successors of a recorded owner in 2014.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Under paragraphs 365 and 366 of Indore Development Authority, lapse requires both non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation, Section 24(2) does not revive stale claims or reopen concluded proceedings, and deposit in the treasury rather than court does not invalidate the acquisition. (¶¶ 3.3, 4)
Held
- The High Court rejected the Government's case of possession taken on 01.05.1964 solely because the land was vacant and partly walled, though it was never the writ petitioners' case that they built the wall and part of the land had construction; there is no reason to disbelieve that possession was taken, compensation was deposited in 1965 and 1967 without any grievance ever being raised by the recorded owners or successors, and the declaration of lapse is unsustainable. (¶¶ 2.2, 3, 3.1, 3.2, 4)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; Delhi High Court judgment dated 18.09.2017 in WP (C) No. 9333 of 2014 quashed and set aside; no deemed lapse of the acquisition; the writ petitioners at liberty to claim compensation, if not paid to the recorded owners or successors, to be considered in accordance with law; pending applications disposed of.