Summary
Following Pune Municipal Corporation, the Delhi High Court declared that an acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation was unpaid, while leaving the writ petitioner's title open. The award had been declared in 1992, and actual possession was taken on 21.03.2007 and handed to the DDA. The writ petitioner, who claimed a 1/12th share, was not the recorded owner, and the recorded owner had never come forward for the compensation. The Supreme Court set the declaration aside. The High Court should not have entertained the petition before the petitioner's right and title were established. On the merits, Pune Municipal Corporation had been overruled in Indore Development Authority, and possession had been taken.
Issues
- Whether a writ petitioner whose title was unestablished could obtain a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for non-payment of compensation where possession had been taken in 2007.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Under Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation, there is no lapse once possession has been taken. (¶¶ 2.2, 3)
Held
- Since the writ petitioner was not the recorded owner, the recorded owner never claimed compensation, and the petitioner's title was yet to be established, the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition while leaving title open. (¶¶ 2, 2.1)
- On merits too, the declaration rested on the overruled Pune Municipal Corporation despite possession having been taken on 21.03.2007 and handed to the DDA, and is unsustainable under Indore Development Authority. (¶¶ 2, 2.2, 3)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 279 of 2023 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 29.11.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 12139 of 2015 declaring lapse quashed and set aside; no costs.