Summary
The Delhi High Court declared that an acquisition in village Ghonda Gujran Khadar had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation was not tendered to the writ petitioner. He claimed a 1/12th share, and the High Court left his title undecided. Possession had been taken on 21.03.2007 and handed to the DDA, and compensation lay unpaid because the recorded owners never came forward. The Supreme Court set the declaration aside and dismissed the writ petition. Under Indore Development Authority there is no lapse once possession is taken, and no tender was due to a person who was not the recorded owner. A writ petition challenging an acquisition should not be entertained before the petitioner's ownership and title are established.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where possession was taken and compensation lay unpaid because the recorded owners did not come forward.
- Whether a writ petition seeking a declaration of lapse can be entertained at the instance of a person whose ownership and title have not been established.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Applying Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation, possession taken by panchnama and possession proceedings precludes lapse. (¶¶ 2.1, 3)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaOwnership and title must first be established before a person can be permitted to challenge an acquisition or seek a declaration of its lapse. (¶ 4)
Held
- The High Court followed Gyanender Singh, which rested on the overruled Pune Municipal Corporation; since possession was taken by panchnama and handed to the DDA, and the writ petitioner, not being the recorded owner, was not entitled to a tender of compensation, the declaration of lapse is unsustainable. (¶¶ 2, 2.1, 3)
- The High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition while leaving open the ownership and title of a petitioner claiming a 1/12th share; title must be established and proved before such a challenge can be permitted. (¶ 4)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 365 of 2023 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 20.12.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 12174 of 2015 quashed and set aside and the writ petition dismissed; no costs.