Summary
The Court reversed a declaration that an old land acquisition had lapsed under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Earlier challenges had concluded, possession had been taken and compensation paid or deposited. A subsequent purchaser could neither revive those proceedings nor obtain the benefit of relief confined to other landowners. Its voluntary deposit did not undo the acquisition and was ordered refunded without interest.
Issues
- Whether section 24(2) could revive the concluded acquisition proceedings.
- Whether relief granted to other landowners extended to the purchaser’s land.
- Whether a post-acquisition purchaser could claim lapse and whether its voluntary deposit affected vesting.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Applied Indore Development Authority: lapse requires the conjunctive statutory conditions; the provision does not reopen concluded acquisitions or confer a fresh challenge on a subsequent purchaser. (¶¶ 29-31, 39-43)
- Sections 5A and 16, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Distinguished relief for objectors denied a hearing from the position of these predecessors, and applied vesting following possession pursuant to the award. (¶¶ 35-39, 42)
Held
- Section 24(2) does not revive stale or concluded proceedings. Applying Indore Development Authority, the Court required both failure to take possession and failure to pay compensation for the requisite period; an acquisition could not lapse merely because one condition was alleged. Possession taken pursuant to the award effects vesting and cannot be undone through this provision. (¶¶ 29-31, 39-42)
- The earlier quashing in Balak Ram II was confined to the petitioners whose section 5A objections had not received the required consideration. These predecessors had filed no such objections, had withdrawn their earlier challenge at their own risk and could not borrow relief granted to others. The subsequent unsuccessful challenge also could not be reopened under section 24(2). (¶ 35-38)
- For Part A, possession and payment of compensation had completed the acquisition. The purchaser’s later voluntary deposit, offered as twice the compensation, could not reverse that result. For the remaining land, the Court found possession had been taken by the Government; absence of onward delivery to DDA did not establish that the original owners retained possession or that the acquisition lapsed. (¶ 39-42)
- The purchaser acquired after the award and vesting and independently lacked a right to seek lapse under section 24. The Court followed Shiv Kumar, which had rejected Manav Dharam Trust; this judgment applied that existing ruling. (¶ 43)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court’s lapse declaration set aside. DDA directed to refund the purchaser’s voluntary deposit of Rs.16,61,774 without interest, in accordance with law.