Summary
The Delhi High Court declared that an acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It accepted that possession had been taken but found it unclear what compensation had been paid. In doing so it relied on Pune Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court set the judgment aside. Pune Municipal Corporation had been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority, which held that deemed lapse requires both that possession was not taken and that compensation was not paid. Possession of the land had been taken and handed to the beneficiary department in 1990 and 2007. Since one condition was not met, the acquisition had not lapsed.
Issues
- Whether land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where possession had been taken but it was unclear what compensation had been paid.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Applying Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, deemed lapse requires twin conditions, that possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid; if either fails there is no lapse. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2, 3)
- Sections 30 and 31, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The High Court's doubt about payment of compensation and compliance with these provisions could not by itself lead to lapse once possession had been taken. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2)
Held
- The High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which was overruled in Indore Development Authority; under that decision Section 24(2) is attracted only where possession has not been taken and compensation not paid. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2)
- Since possession was taken and handed over to the beneficiary department on 27.12.1990 and, for the remaining 1 bigha, on 09.02.2007, there was no deemed lapse and the High Court's declaration is unsustainable. (¶¶ 2.2, 3)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 395 of 2023 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 13.09.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 3446 of 2015 declaring the acquisition to have lapsed quashed and set aside; no costs.