Summary
Land in Delhi was notified for acquisition in 1964. The award was made on 10 December 1997, and possession was handed over to the DDA on 26 May 1998. The Delhi High Court accepted that possession had been taken, but declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had not been tendered. The Supreme Court reversed this. Under Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, there is no lapse unless the authorities have neither taken possession nor paid compensation. The landowners had never disputed the counter affidavits about possession before the High Court, so they could not now argue that possession was taken unlawfully by subordinate staff.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 where possession was taken but compensation was not tendered.
- Whether the landowners could challenge, for the first time in appeal, the lawfulness of possession recorded in a possession certificate as handed over to the DDA.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Following paragraph 366 of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, 'or' between possession and compensation is read as 'nor'; once possession has been taken there is no lapse, and the provision does not reopen concluded proceedings or permit challenges to the mode of taking possession. (¶¶ 5.2, 6)
- Section 16, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The contention that possession taken by subordinate staff rather than the Collector was unlawful was rejected as raised too late, the counter affidavits on possession never having been disputed. (¶¶ 3, 5)
Held
- The Land Acquisition Collector and DDA had stated in counter affidavits that the land was handed over to the DDA on 26.05.1998, no rejoinder was filed, the original owners never complained that the possession was unlawful, and the High Court itself accepted that possession was taken; it was too late to contend otherwise, and the absence of a reference to taking over possession from the owners in the certificate does not detract from the recorded handing over to the DDA. (¶¶ 5, 5.1)
- Declaring a lapse under Section 24(2) merely because compensation was not tendered, though possession had been taken, is contrary to Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. (¶¶ 5.2, 6)
Result
Civil Appeal Nos. 9115 and 9123 of 2022 allowed without costs; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 03.10.2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 2255 of 2016, declaring the acquisition lapsed, set aside.