Summary
The Delhi High Court, following Pune Municipal Corporation, declared that an acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Collector's case was that possession had not been taken only because the High Court had stayed dispossession, and that compensation had been sent by registered post. The Supreme Court set the declaration aside. Pune Municipal Corporation had been overruled in Indore Development Authority. Under Indore, the period of a court stay is excluded from the five years, and lapse requires both non-payment and failure to take possession. A landowner who obtains a stay against dispossession cannot then rely on the absence of possession to claim lapse.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where possession was not taken because the landowner had obtained a stay against dispossession and compensation had been sent.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Following Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, lapse requires that neither possession was taken nor compensation paid owing to the authorities' inaction for five years, excluding periods covered by interim orders of courts. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3)
Held
- The High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which the Constitution Bench overruled in Indore Development Authority. (¶ 2.1)
- Where possession could not be taken because of a court's stay, the stay period is excluded; and having obtained a stay against dispossession, the landowner cannot contend that, as possession was not taken, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 24(2), so the declaration of lapse is unsustainable. (¶¶ 2.2, 3)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 397 of 2023 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 23.01.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 609 of 2016 declaring the acquisition to have lapsed quashed and set aside; no costs.