Summary
The Delhi High Court declared a land acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on the footing that neither possession had been taken nor compensation paid, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation and its own decision in Gyanender Singh, although it recorded that physical possession could not be taken because a stay order in earlier writ petitions continued to operate until the 2013 Act came into force on 1 January 2014. The Supreme Court allowed the Land Acquisition Collector's appeal: under the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority the period during which an interim order subsists must be excluded, so possession prevented by a subsisting stay cannot found a deemed lapse, and both decisions relied on by the High Court no longer hold the field.
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 could not be taken because a court's stay order continued to operate until the Act came into force.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Deemed lapse applies only where authorities failed through their own inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the Act commenced, and the period of subsistence of interim orders is to be excluded from that computation. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5)
Held
- It was the appellants' specific case, and the High Court itself recorded as admitted, that the stay order in earlier writ petitions continued until 01.01.2014 and prevented possession being taken; applying Indore Development Authority, which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and excludes the period of interim orders, there can be no deemed lapse, and the High Court's decision in Gyanender Singh is contrary to the Constitution Bench ruling. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 6)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; Delhi High Court judgment dated 10.08.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 3581 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.