Summary
The Delhi High Court accepted that the landowners had been dispossessed on the dates given in the counter affidavit, and the landowners admitted dispossession in their writ petition. Relying on Pune Municipal Corporation, the High Court still declared that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had not been tendered. The Supreme Court set the declaration aside. Pune Municipal Corporation had been overruled in Indore Development Authority. Lapse requires two conditions together: possession not taken and compensation not tendered. Here possession had admittedly been taken, so there was no lapse.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act solely for non-tender of compensation where the landowners admittedly had been dispossessed.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Under Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, lapse requires both that possession was not taken and that compensation was not tendered; if either condition fails there is no lapse. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2, 3)
Held
- The High Court itself did not dispute, and the landowners admitted, dispossession on specific dates; lapse was claimed solely on non-tender of compensation under Pune Municipal Corporation, which has been overruled. (¶ 2.1)
- As possession was admittedly taken, one of the twin conditions was not satisfied and the declaration of lapse is unsustainable under Indore Development Authority. (¶¶ 2.2, 3)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 361 of 2023 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.04.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 6719 of 2015 quashed and set aside; no costs.