Summary
Land at Ghari Mandu, Shahdara was acquired under 1989 notifications for the planned development of Delhi, the award was made in 1992 and possession handed to the Forest Department. In 2015 the recorded owner's daughter-in-law obtained a declaration from the Delhi High Court, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation, that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for non-payment of compensation, the question of title being left open. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals: Pune Municipal Corporation stands overruled by Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, lapse requires that neither possession be taken nor compensation paid, possession was admittedly taken, compensation could not be paid while title was disputed, and no claim was pursued for two decades.
Issues
- Whether land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 where possession was taken after the award but compensation was not paid because of a dispute over title.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013As construed in Indore Development Authority, the word 'or' between possession and compensation is read as 'nor', so deemed lapse occurs only where neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid for five years or more before 1 January 2014; possession having been taken and handed to the Forest Department, there was no lapse. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 15)
- Sections 4, 6 and 16, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Notifications of 1989 and 1990 and the 1992 award were never challenged by the predecessor-in-interest; once possession is taken under Section 16 the land vests in the State and Section 24(2) provides no divesting. (¶¶ 4, 6, 12)
Held
- The High Court's reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation cannot stand as that decision and all decisions following it were overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority, which held that compliance with either condition, taking possession or paying compensation, sustains the acquisition and that Section 24(2) does not revive stale claims or reopen concluded proceedings. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13)
- The writ petitioner gave up the plea that possession had not been taken and pressed only for compensation under the 2013 Act; since title was disputed and the land recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha, compensation could not have been paid to her predecessor, and nothing shows any step taken for over two decades to seek it. The ingredients of Section 24(2) are therefore not satisfied. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
Result
Appeals allowed; Delhi High Court order dated 30.11.2017 declaring the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act set aside; writ petition dismissed.