Summary
The Delhi High Court declared that the acquisition of agricultural land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act solely because compensation had not been paid or tendered, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation, even though the writ petitioner had admitted in the petition that possession was taken in September 1997. The Supreme Court allowed the Union's appeal: Pune Municipal Corporation stands overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority, under which lapse occurs only where neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid, so an admitted taking of possession rules out any deemed lapse.
Issues
- Whether land acquisition proceedings can be declared to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on the ground of non-payment of compensation alone, where possession of the land was admittedly taken.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Following Indore Development Authority, the word 'or' between possession and compensation is read as 'nor' or 'and'; deemed lapse requires that possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid, and once possession is taken the land vests in the State with no divesting. (¶¶ 2, 2.1, 3)
- Sections 16 and 31, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Possession taken under Section 16 after the award vests the land in the State; non-deposit of compensation in court does not cause lapse but may attract interest under Section 34 or compensation under the 2013 Act. (¶ 2.1)
Held
- The High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation, which the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority has overruled along with every decision following it; applying that law to the writ petitioner's own admission that possession of the land was taken on 22.09.1997, there can be no deemed lapse under Section 24(2) merely because compensation was not paid or tendered. (¶¶ 2, 2.1, 3)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; Delhi High Court judgment dated 02.08.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 9269 of 2014 quashed and set aside; writ petition dismissed and the acquisition held not to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.