Summary
Landowners obtained a declaration that an old acquisition had lapsed despite interim orders obtained by them preventing possession. Applying Indore Development Authority, the Court reversed the lapse finding. Subsequent highway-acquisition notifications issued while the appeal was pending did not create a right to compensation under the later regime where the lands were excluded from the final highway award. In the peculiar circumstances, the owners received a fresh opportunity to seek enhanced compensation under the 1894 Act.
Issues
- Whether interim orders preventing possession could support a deemed lapse under Section 24(2).
- Whether subsequent highway proceedings required compensation under the later regime.
- Whether the owners should receive a further opportunity to seek enhancement under the earlier award.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Interim-order periods preventing possession were excluded, and the owners could not claim lapse by taking advantage of the resulting inability to complete acquisition steps. (¶¶ 11-12, 21-25)
- Sections 3A and 3D, National Highways Act, 1956The subsequent notifications were considered with the continuing earlier acquisition and exclusion from the final highway award; they did not warrant double vesting or the asserted later-regime benefit. (¶¶ 13-16, 20-25)
- Section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894A case-specific opportunity was granted to seek a reference for enhanced compensation under the earlier award without rejection for delay. (¶ 26)
Held
- The interim orders obtained by the owners had effectively prevented possession for the relevant period. Applying Indore Development Authority, those court-imposed restraints could not furnish the basis for Section 24(2) lapse. The High Court’s contrary declaration was unsustainable. (¶ 10-12)
- Although highway notifications and a declaration followed during this appeal, the land was excluded from the final highway award on the basis of the earlier acquisition. The State could not acquire its own interest twice, and these intervening steps did not compel payment under the later regime. (¶¶ 13-16, 20-25)
- Estoppel, election and general equitable considerations did not defeat the acquiring authority’s success under the governing law in these circumstances. Restitution required neutralising the advantage of interim orders rather than rewarding the resulting inability to take possession. This was a determination on the peculiar procedural facts, not a general elimination of statutory possession requirements. (¶ 17-25)
- Because the lapse judgment had reflected the law then applied and the old award was being affirmed through this decision, owners who had not already applied for a Section 18 reference could do so within one month. The request had to be considered under the 1894 Act and could not be rejected for delay. (¶ 26)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court’s lapse declaration was set aside. The owners were permitted, if they had not already done so, to apply within one month for a Section 18 compensation reference under the 1894 Act, with protection against rejection for delay. Parties to bear their own costs.