Summary
The Delhi High Court recorded the Land Acquisition Collector's categorical assertion that possession of the acquired land had been taken. It nonetheless declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, because compensation had not been paid to the recorded owner, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation. The landowner argued that actual possession was never taken because encroachers occupied the area, known as Sanjay Mohalla. The Supreme Court set the declaration aside. Pune Municipal Corporation has been overruled by Indore Development Authority, under which non-payment does not cause lapse once possession has been taken. Any question of regularising the encroachments was not before the Court and was left to the appropriate forum.
Issues
- Whether acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for non-payment of compensation where possession was taken, despite later encroachment on the land.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Under Indore Development Authority, lapse requires both non-possession and non-payment; where possession has been taken, non-payment alone does not suffice. (¶¶ 3, 3.1, 4)
Held
- The High Court itself recorded that possession had been taken and only compensation remained unpaid; its declaration of lapse, resting on the overruled Pune Municipal Corporation decision, is unsustainable under Indore Development Authority. (¶¶ 3, 3.1, 4)
- The presence of illegal occupants or encroachers does not help the landowner, and whether the encroachment is to be regularised is not a matter for this appeal but for the appropriate court. (¶¶ 3.1, 4)
Result
Civil Appeal Nos. 8198 and 8248 of 2022 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 05.02.2018 in Civil Writ Petition No. 1870 of 2016 declaring the acquisition lapsed set aside; no costs.