Summary
The Government of NCT of Delhi said possession of the acquired land had been taken on 05.09.2002, which the landowners disputed. Without resolving that dispute, the Delhi High Court declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act solely because compensation had not been tendered, following Pune Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court set the judgment aside. It held that a decision resting only on Pune Municipal Corporation, overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority, cannot stand. Under that ruling, non-payment of compensation by itself does not cause lapse; possession must also not have been taken.
Issues
- Whether a High Court declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, resting solely on non-tender of compensation and Pune Municipal Corporation, survives Indore Development Authority.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Read per Indore Development Authority, lapse requires both non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation owing to the authorities' inaction; non-tender of compensation alone does not suffice. (¶¶ 3, 4)
Held
- The High Court declared lapse solely on non-tender of compensation, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation, which the Constitution Bench has specifically overruled; the judgment is unsustainable in view of Indore Development Authority. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 8933 of 2022 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 22.11.2016 in Writ Petition (C) No. 10135 of 2015 set aside; no costs.