Summary
Land in Chattarpur village, New Delhi was notified for acquisition in 1980–85. The acquisition was then tied up in litigation that ended in the Supreme Court in 2010, and compensation was deposited in court in December 2013. The Delhi High Court declared it lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because possession had not been taken, relying on Gyanender Singh and Pune Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court set this aside as contrary to the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority. The dismissal of an appeal against Gyanender Singh before that ruling did not help the landowner. Where the authority could not take possession because the acquisition itself was under challenge up to the Supreme Court, the omission could not be counted in the landowners' favour.
Issues
- Whether acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act merely because possession was not taken, where compensation had been deposited in court and the acquisition had been under litigation up to the Supreme Court.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Construed per Indore Development Authority: lapse requires the authorities' inaction for five years or more resulting in neither possession being taken nor compensation paid, excluding periods of court orders; a High Court view contrary to it cannot stand. (¶¶ 6.1, 7)
Held
- The High Court's view, and its earlier decision in Gyanender Singh on which it relied, are contrary to the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority, which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation. (¶¶ 6, 6.1)
- Dismissal of an appeal against Gyanender Singh at a time when the issue was unsettled does not permit reliance on it after Indore Development Authority. (¶ 6.2)
- Where the acquisition proceedings were the subject of litigation in the High Court and this Court and the authority could not take possession on that account, non-taking of possession cannot operate in favour of the landowners. (¶ 6.2)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 8197 of 2022 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 06.07.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 2163 of 2015 declaring the acquisition lapsed set aside; no costs.