Summary
The Delhi High Court declared the acquisition of the respondents' land lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and on the fact that compensation had not been paid. It did so even though the Land Acquisition Collector had stated that possession was taken on 16 March 2004. The Collector appealed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. Pune Municipal Corporation was expressly overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. Under that decision, a deemed lapse needs both that possession was not taken and that compensation was not paid. Possession having been taken, non-payment alone does not cause a lapse. The judgment was set aside and the writ petition dismissed.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition is deemed to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act merely because compensation was not paid, where possession had been taken in 2004.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Following paragraphs 365 and 366 of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation, there is no lapse where possession has been taken even if compensation is unpaid. (¶¶ 2.1, 3)
Held
- The High Court, despite the submission that possession was taken on 16.03.2004, declared lapse solely for non-payment of compensation in reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation, a decision since overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority; its judgment is therefore unsustainable. (¶¶ 2, 2.1, 3)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 8992 of 2022 allowed without costs; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 25.04.2016 set aside and Writ Petition (C) No. 4576 of 2015 dismissed.