Summary
A Constitution Bench held that deemed lapse under section 24(2) of the 2013 land-acquisition Act requires both failure to take possession and failure to pay compensation, attributable to official inaction for the requisite five-year period. Tender discharges the payment obligation for this purpose; non-deposit in court does not itself cause lapse. Interim-stay periods are excluded, and concluded acquisitions or stale claims cannot be reopened. The reference was answered and individual matters left for merits consideration.
Issues
- Whether the possession and compensation conditions for deemed lapse are cumulative.
- What payment, tender and deposit mean and when higher compensation follows.
- How possession is taken and whether vested land can be divested under section 24(2).
- Whether interim-order periods are excluded and stale or concluded claims revived.
Provisions considered
- Section 24, including proviso to subsection (2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Governs transition, deemed lapse and entitlement to compensation under the 2013 Act. (¶¶ 90, 363)
- Sections 16, 31 and 34, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Govern vesting upon possession, tender or deposit of compensation, and interest on default. (¶¶ 90, 115, 117, 118, 200, 203, 224, 363)
- Sections 101 and 114, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Return of unutilised land under section 101 does not govern acquisitions under the 1894 Act; repeal and savings inform the transitional scheme. (¶¶ 90, 94, 360, 361)
- Section 6, General Clauses Act, 1897Preserves accrued rights and proceedings subject to the contrary intention expressed in section 24. (¶¶ 90, 94, 124, 287)
Held
- Where no award existed on 1 January 2014, proceedings did not lapse under section 24(1)(a); compensation must be determined under the 2013 Act. Where the award fell within the five-year window, excluding interim-order periods, proceedings continued under the 1894 Act pursuant to section 24(1)(b). (¶¶ 95, 122, 363)
- The word connecting the two negative conditions in section 24(2) must be read conjunctively. Lapse requires official inaction for five years or more before commencement, with neither possession taken nor compensation paid. Either possession or payment prevents lapse. (¶¶ 99, 101, 112, 113, 123, 363)
- Payment and deposit are distinct. Non-deposit in court does not cause lapse. Default under section 31 may attract interest under section 34; failure to deposit compensation for a majority of holdings for the requisite five years or more attracts compensation under the 2013 Act for all relevant beneficiaries who were landowners on the section 4 notification date. (¶¶ 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 224, 363)
- Tender under section 31(1) completes the obligation to pay for this purpose. Landowners refusing compensation or seeking a reference for enhancement cannot claim deemed lapse on non-payment or non-deposit in court. (¶¶ 200, 203, 206, 224, 363)
- The proviso belongs to section 24(2), including its five-year setting, and cannot be relocated to section 24(1)(b). It provides higher compensation in its stated circumstances rather than invalidating the acquisition. (¶¶ 171, 173, 182, 185, 186, 195, 196, 197, 201, 363)
- Drawing an inquest report or possession memorandum is the recognised mode of taking possession. After an award and possession under section 16, land vests in the State; section 24(2) provides no divesting. Subsequent re-entry or retention does not undo that vesting. (¶¶ 245, 259, 260, 261, 270, 271, 272, 277, 363)
- Court-imposed interim restraints must be excluded when computing the five-year period. The provision addresses inaction of authorities, rather than inability to proceed because of judicial orders. (¶¶ 282, 283, 287, 291, 297, 298, 304, 327, 331, 336, 363)
- Section 24 applies to acquisition proceedings pending when the 2013 Act commenced. It supplies no new cause to challenge concluded acquisitions, revive stale or time-barred claims, or reopen settled questions about possession or treasury deposits. Independent remedies, where available, remain to be considered on their own footing. (¶¶ 337, 340, 342, 343, 349, 353, 356, 357, 359, 363)
- Section 101 concerns return of unutilised land acquired under the 2013 Act and cannot be applied to acquisitions made under the 1894 Act. (¶¶ 360, 361)
- Pune Municipal Corporation and Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association, and decisions following them, were overruled. Indore Development Authority v Shailendra could not prevail on the issues addressed here. The individual matters were directed to the appropriate Bench for decision on merits. (¶¶ 362, 363)
Result
Reference answered with the stated interpretation of section 24. Matters directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench for consideration on merits; individual acquisition disputes were not finally decided.