Summary
The Delhi High Court declared that the acquisition of a landowner's land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, solely because compensation had not been paid, although the DDA's case was that possession had already been taken. The Supreme Court set the judgment aside. The Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal has overruled Pune Municipal Corporation. Under it, the "or" in Section 24(2) is read as "nor", so an acquisition lapses only where, through the authorities' inaction for five years or more before 1 January 2014, possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. Non-payment where possession has been taken causes no lapse. The writ petition was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act merely because compensation was not paid, where possession of the land had been taken.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Deemed lapse requires both non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation for five years or more before the Act's commencement; non-payment alone, with possession taken, causes no lapse. (¶¶ 3, 4)
Held
- The High Court's reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation was misplaced, as that decision was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority, which holds that 'or' in Section 24(2) is to be read as 'nor' or 'and'. (¶¶ 2, 3)
- In view of Indore Development Authority, a declaration of lapse based only on non-payment of compensation, without regard to the plea that possession had been taken, is unsustainable. (¶¶ 4, 5)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Delhi High Court's judgment in W.P. (C) No. 10359 of 2015 declaring lapse set aside and the writ petition dismissed.