Summary
Applying Indore Development Authority, the Court reversed a declaration that land acquisition had lapsed for non-payment of compensation to the claimant. She was not the recorded owner, and a title dispute had led the Collector to deposit compensation with the Reference Court. On these facts the High Court’s lapse declaration could not stand; the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether acquisition could be declared lapsed for non-payment to a claimant where disputed ownership led to deposit with the Reference Court.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Applied Indore Development Authority’s cumulative non-possession and non-payment requirement rather than lapse for non-payment alone. (¶ 8-13)
- Section 31(1) and (2), Land Acquisition Act, 1894Considered the Collector’s obligation to tender compensation and deposit it in court where title or entitlement is disputed. (¶¶ 9, 10, 13)
Held
- Under Indore Development Authority, deemed lapse requires both the relevant failure to take possession and failure to pay compensation; either condition alone does not suffice. The High Court’s contrary reliance on non-payment to the claimant could not be sustained. (¶ 8)
- The claimant admittedly was not the recorded owner, and her earlier compensation application demonstrated knowledge of the acquisition and award. Since ownership was disputed, compensation had been deposited with the Reference Court under sections 30/31. In these circumstances the Court held a lapse declaration unjustified. (¶¶ 9, 13)
- The Court also reiterated that possession taken through the prescribed memorandum after award effects vesting; continued occupation or re-entry does not itself undo that possession. The judgment did not equate every court deposit with the word paid in section 24(2): the quoted Constitution Bench ruling distinguished payment, deposit and the consequences of non-deposit. (¶¶ 8, 11)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court judgment declaring lapse was set aside and the claimant’s writ petition dismissed.