Summary
The Land Acquisition Collector told the Delhi High Court that possession of the respondents' land was taken on 19 January 2006, but that its branch had no details of whether compensation was paid. The DDA said it had released Rs 10 crore to the Land and Building Department in 1990 for the acquired land. The High Court still declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, solely because compensation had not actually been paid to the owners. On the DDA's appeal, the Supreme Court set this aside. Under the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, lapse occurs only where possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. Possession having been taken, non-payment alone does not suffice.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act solely because compensation was not paid to the owners, where possession had been taken in 2006.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Following paragraphs 365 and 366 of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, 'or' between possession and compensation is read as 'nor', so taking of possession excludes a deemed lapse whether or not compensation was paid. (¶ 3)
Held
- The Collector's counter affidavit recorded that possession was taken on 19.01.2006, and the DDA had released Rs 10 crore for the acquisition in 1990; declaring lapse solely because compensation was not actually paid to the owners is contrary to Indore Development Authority, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. (¶¶ 2, 2.1, 3, 4)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 8993 of 2022 allowed without costs; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 27.11.2018 set aside and W.P. (C) No. 10800 of 2016 dismissed.