Summary
The Court rejected a claim, brought about 105 years after the 1911–1912 Raisina acquisition awards, that proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for non-payment of compensation. The provision did not revive stale, dead or otherwise barred claims. The petition lacked any contemporaneous assertion by the petitioners or their ancestors and was held an abuse of process, attracting Rs 50,000 costs.
Issues
- Whether Section 24(2) revived a compensation-based lapse claim raised more than a century after acquisition.
- Whether delay, lack of supporting assertions and completed development barred the relief sought.
Provisions considered
- Section 24, particularly subsection (2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013The reproduced transitional provision was held unavailable to revive stale, dead or legally barred claims. (¶¶ 6, 13, 19–23)
- Sections 31 and 34, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The Court distinguished tender, court deposit and interest consequences, observing that failure to deposit under the old Act imposed interest liability rather than invalidating acquisition under that Act. (¶¶ 8–11, 19–20)
Held
- The claim was barred by gross delay and laches. Neither these petitioners nor the preceding three generations were shown to have approached authorities in writing for compensation; no contemporaneous protest or representation supported the assertion of non-payment. (¶¶ 13–18, 21–23)
- Section 24 did not reopen concluded or barred matters, override judgments by which rights had been finally lost, or revive claims extinguished through prolonged inaction. The beneficial provision could not facilitate misuse of process. (¶¶ 19, 21–25)
- The Court also stated that owners who deliberately declined tendered compensation could not invoke Section 24(2) to secure lapse merely because court deposit had not followed; its discussion distinguished the interest consequences of non-deposit under the 1894 Act. (¶¶ 19–20, 25)
- Prayers to restore extensive developed land, obtain equivalent land and halt construction after more than a century were misconceived and abusive in the absence of any earlier asserted claim. (¶ 23–26)
Result
Special leave petition dismissed with Rs 50,000 costs payable to the Supreme Court Bar Association advocates’ welfare fund within four weeks, with compliance to be reported.