Summary
The Delhi High Court declared an acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, relying heavily on Pune Municipal Corporation. It did not consider the State's case that possession could not be taken because the landowners themselves had challenged the acquisition, and lost, all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set the declaration aside under Indore Development Authority. Landowners whose own litigation prevented possession being taken cannot later rely on the failure to take possession to claim lapse.
Issues
- Whether landowners can claim lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on the ground that possession was not taken, where possession could not be taken because of their own unsuccessful challenge to the acquisition.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Deemed lapse arises only from the authorities' inaction for five years or more, excluding the period of interim orders (Indore Development Authority); non-possession caused by the landowners' own litigation does not qualify. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2)
Held
- The High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation and failed to consider that possession could not be taken because the landowners' challenge to the acquisition was pending, which ultimately failed in this Court. (¶¶ 2, 2.1)
- Where possession could not be taken owing to the pendency of the landowners' challenge, it is not open to them to contend that the acquisition lapsed because possession was not taken; the declaration is unsustainable under Indore Development Authority. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2, 3)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 8929 of 2022 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 22.09.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 5258 of 2015 declaring the acquisition lapsed set aside; no costs.