Summary
The Court reversed a deemed-lapse declaration where acquisition possession had been taken by panchnama on 31 December 2013, before the 2013 Act commenced. Applying Indore Development Authority, non-payment of compensation alone did not cause lapse because both statutory failures had to coexist. The assertion that this was merely paper possession was rejected.
Issues
- Whether possession recorded by panchnama before commencement prevented deemed lapse despite non-payment of compensation.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Applied the cumulative requirement of failure to take possession and failure to tender or pay compensation. (¶¶ 3, 3.1, 4)
Held
- The 2013 Act commenced on 1 January 2014. Possession taken on 31 December 2013 therefore preceded commencement, contrary to the claimant’s argument. (¶ 3)
- Drawing a panchnama was a legally recognised mode of taking possession under Indore Development Authority. The Court accordingly rejected the contention that continued physical occupation made the acquisition possession ineffective. (¶ 3.1)
- Both non-possession and non-payment or non-tender were required for deemed lapse. Since possession had been taken, the High Court could not declare lapse solely because compensation had not been paid or tendered. (¶¶ 3.1, 4)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; the High Court judgment declaring deemed lapse was set aside.