Summary
A claimant to 504 square yards in village Pehladpur Bangar obtained from the Delhi High Court a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, although the Delhi Development Authority had shown that compensation of over Rs. 80 crores was released in August 2005, possession of 457 bighas was taken by possession proceedings on 31 August 2005 and the remainder was under illegal occupation, the petitioner himself being an encroacher; the High Court nonetheless limited him to compensation under the 2013 Act. The Supreme Court allowed the Authority's appeal: the declaration was contrary to Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, inability to take physical possession because of encroachers cannot found a lapse, and once no lapse is declared no question of compensation under the 2013 Act arises; the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition can be declared lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 where compensation was released and possession of the bulk of the land taken, the remainder being under illegal occupation including by the writ petitioner.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Under paragraph 366 of Indore Development Authority, lapse requires both non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation; where compensation was released and possession taken by possession proceedings, with the balance held by encroachers, there is no lapse and consequently no entitlement to compensation under the 2013 Act. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4, 4.2)
Held
- The High Court was conscious that actual physical possession could not be taken because of illegal occupation yet declared a lapse; the petitioner, who encroached on government land claiming to be owner, is entitled neither to the declaration nor to compensation under the 2013 Act. (¶¶ 2.1, 4.1, 4.2)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; Delhi High Court judgment dated 10.07.2018 in WP (C) No. 3383 of 2016 quashed and set aside and the writ petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.