Summary
The Delhi High Court declared an acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act relying on Pune Municipal Corporation, without examining the Government's specific case that possession had been taken on 4 March 1983 and without deciding a pending ownership dispute between the writ petitioner and another respondent. The Supreme Court allowed the Government of NCT of Delhi's appeal: the High Court ought first to have decided ownership and the petitioner's locus, and in any event Pune Municipal Corporation stands overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, under which there is no lapse where possession has been taken.
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 without deciding the petitioner's title and locus and where the State's case was that possession had been taken in 1983.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Applying paragraphs 365 and 366 of Indore Development Authority, deemed lapse requires both that possession was not taken and that compensation was not paid; the State's specific case of possession having been taken on 04.03.1983 defeats the claim of lapse. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4)
Held
- The High Court should have first resolved the ownership dispute and the writ petitioner's locus before granting relief; its declaration founded on the overruled decision in Pune Municipal Corporation is unsustainable. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; Delhi High Court judgment dated 01.12.2015 in WP (C) No. 3539 of 2015 quashed and set aside; pending applications disposed of.