Summary
Landowners whose land had been acquired for the Agra Development Authority obtained an Allahabad High Court declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation had not actually been paid to them, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki. The Authority's case was that possession had been taken and its name mutated in the revenue records, development works carried out, the entire compensation deposited with the Special Land Acquisition Officer, and the owners had themselves declined to collect compensation for the remaining 6 biswa 15 biswansi.
Issues
- Whether a declaration of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, founded on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki on the ground that compensation was not actually paid to the landowners, survives the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Deemed lapse requires that for five years or more before 01.01.2014 neither possession was taken nor compensation paid; where compensation was tendered under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act and refused, or possession taken, there is no lapse, and the provision does not revive stale claims or reopen concluded proceedings (Indore Development Authority, para 366). (¶¶ 3, 3.1, 4, 4.1)
Held
- The High Court rested solely on Pune Municipal Corporation and decisions following it; that decision having been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority, the impugned judgment is unsustainable. (¶¶ 3.1, 4)
- On the facts — possession taken and mutated in the Authority's name, development carried out, compensation deposited with the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the owners deliberately not collecting the balance — the acquisition cannot be said to have lapsed under the 2013 Act. (¶¶ 3, 4.1)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Allahabad High Court's judgment of 25.01.2017 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13927 of 2016 declaring the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act quashed and the writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.