Summary
The Land Acquisition Collector stated before the Delhi High Court that possession of nineteen of twenty biswas was taken by possession proceedings in April 2009 and that the landowner, served with a notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to collect compensation, never came, so the amount went to revenue deposit; the High Court nevertheless declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation, for want of a categorical statement that compensation was paid. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal: Pune Municipal Corporation is overruled by Indore Development Authority, possession of the major portion was validly taken, and a landowner who ignores a notice to collect compensation cannot take advantage of his own conduct to plead non-payment.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition can be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 where possession of the major portion of the land was taken by possession proceedings and the landowner, served with a notice to collect compensation, failed to collect it.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Following Indore Development Authority, lapse requires both that possession was not taken and compensation was not paid; taking possession by drawing possession proceedings is the recognised mode, and a landowner who was tendered compensation cannot claim lapse for non-payment. (¶¶ 2, 2.1, 3, 4)
- Sections 12(2) and 31, Land Acquisition Act, 1894A notice under Section 12(2) was served by registered post calling on the landowner to collect compensation; on his failure the amount was sent to revenue deposit, which completes the obligation to tender and precludes the plea of non-payment. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4)
Held
- Once the notice under Section 12(2) was served and the landowner did not come to collect the compensation, which was then sent to revenue deposit, it is not open to him to contend that the acquisition lapsed for non-payment; he cannot be permitted to take the benefit of his own conduct. With possession of nineteen biswas taken on 13.04.2009 by possession proceedings, a mode held permissible in Indore Development Authority, the High Court's declaration of lapse is unsustainable. (¶¶ 3, 4)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; Delhi High Court judgment dated 12.09.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 1754 of 2015 quashed and set aside; writ petition dismissed and the acquisition held not to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.